It is being reported tonight that Condoleezza Rice is leading a short list of potential Vice Presidential running mates for Obama White. That the Romney campaign would even float such an idea confirms how very out-of-touch Mitt Romney is with the conservative base of the Republican Party, particularly Christian conservatives.
Here in South Carolina, those of us who have been alienated by the GOP establishment's imposition of a Massachusetts liberal as the party's nominee, have the luxury of casting a protest vote knowing that our South Carolina electors will not be voting for Barack Hussein Obama. However, there are many battleground states where the Republican base will be looking for a sign from the Etch-a-Sketch candidate that he might actually govern like the conservative he now claims to be. The selection of Condoleezza Rice will make clear this is a Nelson Rockefeller-Christie Whitman-Lindsay Graham kind of Republican. The suggestion is an affront to the majority of Republicans who voted in the primaries for a candidate other than Romney.
It is establishment, liberal Republicans who brought America the tragedy and ruin of the Obama administration. Those Bush Republicans are deservedly anathema to millions of Americans. A choice such as this should be first among many reasons for Republican delegates to abandon this doomed candidacy and select a candidate with broad national appeal.
Four years ago, when another RINO was floating the idea of Rice as a running mate, we posted the following column by Janet Folger. If there are any sane political consultants advising the Romney campaign, we hope it will serve as a warning.
My 'Mild' Opposition to Condi Rice for VP
Secretary Rice administered the oath of office for the global AIDS coordinator, homosexual activist Mark Dybul, while Dybul's domestic partner held the Bible.
By Janet Folger
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is making the rounds vying for vice president.
Last week, she paid a visit to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax
Reform coalition meeting. I quit going to that meeting about a decade
ago when Ann Stone of "Republican's for Choice" sat three seats away
from me straining to hear our pro-life activities so she could try and
stop them. Some tents are just too big.
By
the way, Norquist, who often describes his position as "guns good,
taxes bad" (something upon which most conservatives agree), after speaking for the Dallas Log Cabin Republicans,
might want to update his introduction: "Homosexuality good, Marriage
bad," since his event was the biggest fundraiser of the year for the
group that fought against marriage while it was on the Texas ballot in
2005. I like to strategize with people who want the same things – the
very reason I don't attend meetings at Obama headquarters. But I can
certainly understand why Condoleezza stopped by.
I
am a Republican because of the principles in the party spelled out in
the platform. I will remain one until the Republican Party ceases to
stand for my beliefs, including the basic principles of life, marriage,
less government and a strong defense. And when candidates violate these
basic principles, I simply will not vote for them – even for vice
president.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described herself
as "mildly pro-choice." Let me first say, there is nothing "mild" about
having your arms and legs ripped off your body in that "choice" we call
abortion. Use any rhetoric you'd like, if you favor abortion, you still
have a dead kid – 4,000 of them a day, actually, killed in the most
non-mild ways imaginable.
Nothing
particularly "mild" about Stephen Douglas being "pro-choice" when it
came to slavery, either. No, the Republican Party was the one to stand
against slavery even when candidates tried to hide behind the
"pro-choice" (for the slave-owner) rhetoric.
Washington
Times White House correspondent Bill Sammon pressed Rice, "But it
sounds like you do not wish to change the laws that now allow
(abortion). ..."
Rice
responded, "Well, I don't spend my entire life thinking about these
issues. … What I do think is that we should not have the federal
government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or
the other."
If
Lincoln held that position on slavery, we'd probably still have slave
states today. We certainly wouldn't have an African-American secretary
of state, that's for sure.
Beyond being wrong on the prerequisite issue of life, you won't believe what else she's wrong on. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, summarized Rice's activities as head of the State Department with a Dec. 28, 2006, letter protesting the U.S. vote to give three radical homosexual groups official U.N. status.
Among
the homosexual groups who were granted official "NGO (non-governmental
organization) U.N. status was the Danish National Association for Gays
and Lesbians, which supports homosexual "marriage," forced homosexual
adoption and laws that would force churches to "bless" homosexual
unions. Under Rice's direction, the U.S. also voted to recognize the
International Lesbian and Gay Federation, which was linked to the North
American Man/Boy Love Association and has refused to condemn adult-child
sex.
Nothing
"mild" about pedophilia, either. Forget going after child molesters;
let's give them official status at the U.N.! Good one, Condi.
Then,
on Oct. 10, 2006, Secretary Rice administered the oath of office for
the global AIDS coordinator, homosexual activist Mark Dybul, while
Dybul's domestic partner held the Bible. Ironic, isn't it? Too bad they
never opened it. Dybul will oversee how $15 billion of our hard-earned
tax dollars gets spent. Think of how you could further your agenda if
your budget was $15 billion. I'd include the link to the homosexual
publication that documents this, but it's laden with porn. What a shock.
Rice
then introduced first lady Laura Bush to Dybul's domestic partner's
mother as Dybul's "mother in law." This is only "mildly" at odds with
the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (which even President Clinton
signed) declaring that the federal government shall not recognize
"marriage" between two men. Obviously, Secretary Rice doesn't "spend her
entire life thinking about federal law" on that issue, either – "mildly
speaking."
Seems
Rice is so anxious to recognize homosexual "marriages" that she can't
even wait for her radical homosexual U.N. efforts to take effect. Maybe
she'd do better at Obama headquarters.
Not
to mention her "road map for peace," which has "mildly" negative
consequences for the survival of Israel, forcing the Jewish state to
give up even more strategically significant land for promises of "peace"
from "mild-mannered" terrorists and their mildly fanatical pursuit of
world domination and the eradication of Israel from existence.
On
my radio program yesterday, I was questioned about exposing the
secretary of state's position without first going to her directly. Oh,
I've already done that. I asked her to re-examine her radical
abortion-on-demand position when I saw her at the inaugural ball back in
2001. I didn't have time to get to the rest.
Let
me just summarize it for you: I am categorically, vehemently,
emphatically and intensely opposed to Condoleezza Rice for vice
president … to put it "mildly."