Matt Drudge’s trial balloon story about Condoleezza Rice as Mitt Romney’s running mate is causing waves among some conservatives.
Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential GOP nominee, defended Rice on Fox News, about an hour after Drudge said the Rice was the front runner as the potential nominee as vice president.
“I would certainly prefer a presidential and vice presidential candidate who had that respect for all innocent precious purposeful human life,” Palin said. “We need to remember, though, that it’s not the vice president that would legislate abortion and that would be Congress’s role, and we’ll keep that in mind.”
By Friday, a lot of catcalls were coming on the Internet about Rice’s alleged pro-choice stance and Romney’s long-time insistence that he’d only have a pro-life running mate.
The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List issued a statement condemning Rice as a potential running mate.
“Former Secretary Rice's position on the sanctity of human life makes her an unqualified candidate for Governor Romney to choose as a running mate,” the group said.
In a 2008 interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Rice gave a long answer when asked if she was pro-choice.
“I consider myself like many Americans on this issue. I really respect people who are on different sides of this divide. This is a tough moral issue. I myself am someone who believes strongly in parental notification, I am against late-term abortion, which I think is really very cruel. I have not wanted to see the law changed because it’s an area that I worry about the government being involved in,” she said.
“But I am like most Americans. I think abortion is a terrible thing. I think it is hard on the woman. I don’t think people do it lightly. And I really hope there will be fewer and fewer.”
The conservative Washington Times said a Romney choice of Rice would be a “flip flop” on abortion.
In a Washington Post opinion piece, Jonathan Bernstein offers a simple argument.
“Rice is pro-choice, and so she’s not eligible for the Republican presidential ticket,” he says. “A Republican Party that would accept a pro-choice candidate on the ticket would be a very different Republican Party from what we’ve seen in a long, long time.”
Related Constitution Daily Stories
Condoleezza Rice’s remarks show immigration drift from Mitt House may treat some reporters as spies Penn State’s civil liability may be tied to Supreme Court precedents