Monday, April 07, 2008


ABC reported yesterday that Condoleezza Rice is "actively courting the vice presidential nomination." (The New York Times says McCain claims to know nothing about this.)

In response to all this news, someone at Free Republic almost instantly posted a 2005 article that quoted Rice describing herself as "mildly pro-choice." A couple of responses:

... I used to admire Condi as Secretary of State, before she went over to the dark side and started playing footsie with the Palestinian terrorists and the Kosovo terrorists.

But I never would have accepted her as a V.P. candidate, precisely because she is pro abortion.

She says she is only mildly pro-abortion. What on earth does that mean? That she’d only cut the babies in half, instead of quarters?


Condi the Jooo-hating dingbat, now 'pro-choice' is a perfect running mate for the stinkin' commie Obama.

And in this FR thread:

Pro Palestinian, pro abortion... I vote NO.


A vote for Rice is a vote for a Rev. Wright cool-aid drinker.


Her meddling in Israel's matters is dissing the Lord.

There's some enthusiasm for her, especially in this thread -- they like the notion that putting a black woman on the ticket would confound Democrats (would it?), they like Bush's wars -- and she's referred to as a strong supporter of gun rights. (I'm trying to figure out where that comes from; all I've got is one Larry King interview in 2005, but, yeah, she's pushing all the right buttons for the folks who think the Constitution consists of the Second Amendment plus a bunch of window dressing.)

Of course, a lot of Freepers still aren't with the McCain program -- one insists in all seriousness that McCain is a socialist -- so I don't know how representative they are. It's the rest of the country, obviously, that really matters. But she wouldn't solidify the base.


AND: I've assumed that the main reason Condi wouldn't be on the ticket is that without an overt tie to the Bush administration, McCain can pretend to be an agent of change and the media will play along. But I'm not sure anymore that sharing a ticket with a Bushie would even be a problem, now that I've seen Cokie Roberts parroting the McCain/Lieberman/Lindsey Graham line that "Americans would prefer to win" in Iraq. (Anyone read the article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine about the white blue-collar residents of Levittown, Pennsylvania? They may not be coming around to Barack Obama, but these non-latte drinkers are just sick and tired of the war. Even if Cokie didn't read the article before going on the air, can't she read a poll?)

Maybe McCain thinks he can B.S. his way past America's anti-war mood, just like Bush in '04, in the belief that, if he as a Republican says Americans want "victory" often enough, the press will make that conventional wisdom. If Karl Rove really is more involved in McCain's campaign than we're being told, then I think McCain really might have started thinking this way.

No comments: