Although Drudge Report and other rightwing media outlets have been reporting that Mitt Romney is considering former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as his vice presidential running mate (in a vain attempt to drown out the massive Mittstorm Romney currently finds himself in the middle of, perhaps?), Romney himself declared that he would pick only a pro-life running mate at a South Carolina candidate forum in September of 2011:
Moderator: Gov. Romney, will the person you chose as your vice presidential running mate be someone who shares your pro-life and pro-marriage convictions?
Romney: I certainly imagine so, I haven’t made and selections in that regard … [as I look around at the people I would consider] I would expect that they would all be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage … but this is an important enough issue that the person that I would select in that position would share my views on those important issues.
Host: So more than just expectation — would share those views?
Romney: Yes … that person would share my views, yeah.
Someone had better break it to Mittens that Condoleezza Rice is pro-choice.
The rumors that Rice is going to get the GOP VP slot have been seized upon by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan, the WSJ, WIlliam Kristol and everyone’s favorite dingbat dipshit, Sarah Palin. Truly the selection of Rice would have been a brilliant one, but how is Mittens going to square the fact that she’s pro-life with his pledge and the fact that the religious right would be furious at him???
Here’s what Condoleezza Rice told Washington Times correspondent Bill Sammon after she described herself as “mildy pro-life” to him in 2005.
Sammon asked her “But it sounds like you do not wish to change the laws that now allow (abortion)...”
“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.
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. So, for instance, I’ve 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 it.”
Not at all an unreasonable position, but when has the Republican party ever been about reasonable?
When Sammon pressed Rice and told her that in order to become a Republican president, the applicant for the position must be firmly pro-life, Rice replied:
“I’m not trying to be elected.”
And in case Romney didn’t get the message, this morning the Susan B. Anthony List — a pro-life advocacy group — sent TPM a video clip of Romney at that 2011 South Carolina candidate forum. He might have forgotten, momentarily, that he’s supposed to be pro-life, but trust me, the rigthwingers are going to remind his ass, but quick!
Why would Rice want to get herself involved with the clownjob Romney campaign, anyway? Her place in history has already been set. No matter what one might think about her years serving in the Bush administration, she’s not an undignified, or unintelligent person. Mitt Romney may need Condi Rice, but she certainly doesn’t need him!
It’s not been a good week for Thurston Howell III Mitt Romney has it?
And in case you missed it, Rachel Maddow took Romney’s head off last night over the Bain lies. And the Boston Globe refuses to retract their reporting. Big fun.There is no schadenfreude quite like Republican schadenfreude.