No to Condoleezza Rice For Veep


Condoleezza Rice has, in my estimation, served this country with distinction.

First, as a member of the National Security Council during the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Then, as Secretary of State, during the presidency of George Walker Bush.

A FOX News poll released yesterday said that Rice is the top choice of the Republican faithful to be the ticketmate of Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

But she is not the top choice of this social conservative; this long-time Republican.

That’s because Condi supports abortion “rights.” And, frankly, because the 58-year-old has never been married; never had children.

I believe that, after Barack Obama’s jobless “recovery” and his government takeover of the nation’s health care system, the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential campaign will be marriage and abortion.

Romney, the GOP standardbearer, can proclaim himself as the candidate who stands with the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

On the other side is Democrat Obama, who stands with the abortionists; who stands with the homosexuals who defile the institution of marriage, which was created by God Almighty.

I believe Romney loses both the abortion and marriage issues with Condi on ticket.

For while she says that she opposes late term abortion and she favors parental notification when an under-age girl seeks an abortion, the fact remains that, if her views became policy, there would continue to be more than one million unborn babies killed each year.

I do not know Condi’s views on marriage. Whether she agrees that it is the backbone of society; that it should be reserved exclusively to one man and one woman; that same-sex marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God.

If she agrees with all that, her views coincide with those of social conservatives and Christian evangelicals, who make up a third of the Republican Party base.

Nevertheless, it would be hard for Condi to make a strong, convincing case for traditional marriage when she’s never been a bride herself. When she’s never been a mom.

I’m not condemning Condi for never being married. And by absolutely no means am I criticizing her for being childless. 

I’m simply saying that that a never-been-married, childless woman – or man for that matter – is not the ideal spokesperson for family values.

That’s not to say that there is no place in a Romney administration for an individual boasting the distinguished resume of Condoleezza Rice.

Maybe U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Or Secretary of Homeland Security.

Just not a heartbeat away from the presidency.

This entry was published on July 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM. It’s filed under Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

2 thoughts on “No to Condoleezza Rice For Veep

  1. anonymous on said:

    Condi’s views on abortion have been considerably misrepresented. See wikie. 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.”[94] She would not want the federal government “forcing its views on one side or the other.”[95]

    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.[95]

  2. If I could add to it I would. You covered it all. Well said. I would like to say something about Christians who won’t vote at all because Romney is not one. God has given us over to the leadership of Godless Kings before. It’s our own fault. However those Godless Kings are not a terror for good works. We will be blessed by God and He could use Romney. He is a moral man and he is what God has given us. Btw, God gave us Bachman and Perry and Palin and more as well as Huckabee the last time but none of them stood up proudly to defend the cross of Christ and if their marketing included their Christianity it was a token blurg. I’m gone.

Leave a Reply to Jack Wilson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: