I grew up in Ottawa - Canada's capital city - and my mother was a serious political animal and part of the PMO staff (Prime Minister's Office), which would loosely correspond to senior Executive Branch staff in the US. So I always see wheels within wheels when I hear of stuff like this.
This could be a rumour to test the acceptability of Rice to Republican voters, with the thought being that if she can hold the core Republican vote, plus pull women and minorities away from the Democratic vote, then she would be a viable candidate against anyone the Democrats could come up with. Would Americans who want to see a woman or a person of colour in the White House vote for someone who would continue current policies?
As far as the pro-choice issue is concerned, there's an interview in which she clarifies her position here:
She says, in part, "I believe 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'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm 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."
Since I've very strongly pro-choice, this doesn't sound very much like choice to me. She goes on to talk about how important it is to have a "culture of life" which is apparently a phrase used frequently in the evangelical Christian movement to refer to, among other things, some strongly anti-choice positions. I think she wants to have it both ways, actually, no matter what her inner personal convictions are on the topic.
Anyway, it's a far-out scenario no matter how one spins it, but it added some mild amusement to my day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 12:19 am (UTC)This could be a rumour to test the acceptability of Rice to Republican voters, with the thought being that if she can hold the core Republican vote, plus pull women and minorities away from the Democratic vote, then she would be a viable candidate against anyone the Democrats could come up with. Would Americans who want to see a woman or a person of colour in the White House vote for someone who would continue current policies?
As far as the pro-choice issue is concerned, there's an interview in which she clarifies her position here:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031401.html
She says, in part, "I believe 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'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm 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."
Since I've very strongly pro-choice, this doesn't sound very much like choice to me. She goes on to talk about how important it is to have a "culture of life" which is apparently a phrase used frequently in the evangelical Christian movement to refer to, among other things, some strongly anti-choice positions. I think she wants to have it both ways, actually, no matter what her inner personal convictions are on the topic.
Anyway, it's a far-out scenario no matter how one spins it, but it added some mild amusement to my day.