6 Reasons I Won't Support Condoleezza Rice for Vice President
BY Matthew Archbold
| Posted 7/13/12 at 12:45 AM
I used to run political campaigns. I know how to strategize. I know how to read polls. So many years ago, I might have argued to you why Mitt Romney picking Condoleezza Rice as his vice presidential nominee would be a brilliant maneuver. But I can't do that anymore. I won't. Because some things matter more than polls. And I'm telling you now that I won't be able to vote for a Romney/Rice ticket. I just don't see how I could.
Here's a few reasons:
1) Abortion. When asked by a Washington Times reporter about her stance on abortion, she responded by calling herself "mildly pro-choice."
I guess babies killed during a Romney/Rice administration would only be mildly dead? Nope. They'd actually be all the way dead.
2) She's a professor at Stanford. Do you really think she's getting more conservative while hanging out at Stanford?
3) I don't trust Mitt Romney. I don't. He's been all over the map on too many issues. So I'm looking for a vice presidential nominee that will help me suspend my disbelief. I'm looking for someone to essentially vouch for Romney.
4) Peggy Noonan seems to think it's a great idea. That's never a good sign.
5) Judges. Judges. Judges. Who a presidential nominee picks for a vice president certainly gives us a hint as to what kind of judges they'll select. And that would say nothing good about Romney's selection.
6) One of her responses when asked about abortion just bugged me to no end because when pressed by a reporter about her abortion stance, she reportedly said, "Well, I don’t spend my entire life thinking about these issues. You know, I spend my time really thinking about the foreign policy issues. But you know that I’m a deeply religious person and so, from my point of view, these extremely difficult moral issues where we have—where we’re facing issues with technology and the prolongation of life and the fact that very, very young babies are able to survive now—very small babies are able to survive—these are great moral issues."
You don't spend your life thinking about what you admit are the great moral issues? What? She's not brushing it off by saying it's above her pay grade but her answer sure seems a little dismissive of the 50 million unborn who've been killed at the hands of abortionists, doesn't it?
I know some will say "Matt, you're crazy." Yeah, I get that a lot. But here's the thing. I often vote Republican but I'm under no illusion that the party likes me. I've been to too many party functions to think so. The party is kind of embarrassed at the nutty pro-lifers that show up in minivans with their five, six, seven or more children. Look how the party establishment treated Sarah Palin. You think they think more highly of you?
I know that the only time the Republican Party will push pro-life legislation in any real way is when they fear losing the pro-life vote. If, in this election, we allow Mitt Romney to pick a pro-choice veep and still support him with our vote, we're done. We become as effective as the Democrats for Life which is to say not effective at all. If the GOP doesn't fear losing our vote they'll never listen to us again. I know that if we don't support Romney, Obama will win. And that will be disastrous. It might even be unrecoverably disastrous. But if pro-lifers no longer have any say in either party then disaster is certain.
So I don't know if this was a trial balloon or a rumor but I'm letting it be known that if Mitt Romney picks Condi as his veep, he loses my vote. And I don't think I'll be alone.
Copyright © 2013 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.