Bryan Fischer
Condoleezza Rice: absolutely not the choice for VP
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
A firestorm of speculation has erupted surrounding Mitt Romney's possible choice of Condoleezza Rice as his vice-presidential pick. Drudge leaked her name last night, and the conflagration started almost immediately.
The assessment of social conservatives to a Rice pick must be simple and straightforward: over our dead bodies.
Condi Rice is extremely intelligent, highly educated, winsome, and wrong on the major moral issues of our time.
She is, by her own description, "mildly pro-choice" on abortion. Well, it's either a baby or it's not. Either a baby is being killed in an abortion, or it's not. There is no "mildly" about it.
She does not want the government "forcing its views" on the sanctity of life. She thus blithely and blindly ignores the "self-evident" truth that the fundamental purpose of government, according to the Founders, is to "secure" for its people the "unalienable right" to life, which has been bestowed upon us by the Creator.
She told Christianity Today that, when it comes to abortion, "I'm generally pretty libertarian in these matters," and that she doesn't want "the government involved in these really hard moral decisions." I hate to break it to Ms. Rice, but that's the sacred responsibility of lawmkers: to make really hard moral decisions. If she doesn't have the stomach for it, she'd best leave the task to others with a little more starch in the spine.
The problem with this business of morality, of course, is that the pro-abortion crowd has absolutely no hesitation about using the force of government to impose its moral views on American society. In truth, morality is all anyone can legislate. The only question is whose morality will be legislated: the morality of God or the morality of man?
To the pro-death crowd, preserving the capacity of a woman to kill her own baby is a moral imperative, and they will make fierce and aggressive moral arguments to support their view. To them, the issue is all about morality: we must protect a woman's right to choose because it is the morally right thing to do.
Ms. Rice wants to abandon the field of public policy to secular fundamentalists when it comes to the sanctity of life. This is not wisdom or evangelical maturity or "contagious" Christianity or anything of the sort. It is abject surrender. Being "libertarian" on the most profound moral issue of our time is simply not an acceptable view for a conservative public servant.
Ms. Rice has other problems. She is in favor of civil unions, which is problematic because it is a way of normalizing behavior that the Judeo-Christian tradition she claims to embrace has always considered to be immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.
Ms. Rice thinks it's "terrifying" to blend religion and politics, which means she rejects George Washington's conviction that "religion and morality" are "indispensable supports" of "political prosperity." In other words, in Washington's worldview political prosperity rests on the firm foundation of Judeo-Christian conviction and moral values. Condi begs to differ. If we want to get back to the values of the Founders, Condi is not going to help us get there.
Ms. Rice is also in favor of racism in college admissions, and believes, contrary to Martin Luther King, Jr., that preferences in college admissions should continue to be granted on the basis of skin color rather than merit.
She is also too green for Romney's own good. She was, for instance, critical of President Bush for not supporting the disastrous Kyoto Protocol and wants us to move away from "the Gordian knot of fossil fuels" She would make our problems with the Enviro-Nazis at the EPA worse instead of better.
So Ms. Rice, as appealing as she might be at first glance, is pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-affirmative action, and pro-green. In other words, she would make a terrible choice as a running mate for a candidate who already suffers from a serious enthusiasm deficit with the base.
After running into a buzzsaw when he announced the choice of Ric Grenell, a same-sex marriage crusader, to a prominent campaign position, I suspect the governor decided to be a bit more careful this time around. His campaign likely floated her name as a trial balloon, to see what kind of response her name would generate from conservative voters.
Gov. Romney himself would be tickled pink with Rice, since she shares his near-absolute lack of conviction on moral values. But by leaking her name to Drudge, Romney's folks can gauge the weather before buying the umbrella.
It's a shrewd move on Romney's part, but this is a trial balloon that needs to be shot out of the sky.
The pro-life, pro-family community needs to speak firmly and clearly with one voice: when it comes to Condoleezza Rice as a vice-presidential candidate, the answer is, "No, no, a thousand times no."
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
July 14, 2012
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
A firestorm of speculation has erupted surrounding Mitt Romney's possible choice of Condoleezza Rice as his vice-presidential pick. Drudge leaked her name last night, and the conflagration started almost immediately.
The assessment of social conservatives to a Rice pick must be simple and straightforward: over our dead bodies.
Condi Rice is extremely intelligent, highly educated, winsome, and wrong on the major moral issues of our time.
She is, by her own description, "mildly pro-choice" on abortion. Well, it's either a baby or it's not. Either a baby is being killed in an abortion, or it's not. There is no "mildly" about it.
She does not want the government "forcing its views" on the sanctity of life. She thus blithely and blindly ignores the "self-evident" truth that the fundamental purpose of government, according to the Founders, is to "secure" for its people the "unalienable right" to life, which has been bestowed upon us by the Creator.
She told Christianity Today that, when it comes to abortion, "I'm generally pretty libertarian in these matters," and that she doesn't want "the government involved in these really hard moral decisions." I hate to break it to Ms. Rice, but that's the sacred responsibility of lawmkers: to make really hard moral decisions. If she doesn't have the stomach for it, she'd best leave the task to others with a little more starch in the spine.
The problem with this business of morality, of course, is that the pro-abortion crowd has absolutely no hesitation about using the force of government to impose its moral views on American society. In truth, morality is all anyone can legislate. The only question is whose morality will be legislated: the morality of God or the morality of man?
To the pro-death crowd, preserving the capacity of a woman to kill her own baby is a moral imperative, and they will make fierce and aggressive moral arguments to support their view. To them, the issue is all about morality: we must protect a woman's right to choose because it is the morally right thing to do.
Ms. Rice wants to abandon the field of public policy to secular fundamentalists when it comes to the sanctity of life. This is not wisdom or evangelical maturity or "contagious" Christianity or anything of the sort. It is abject surrender. Being "libertarian" on the most profound moral issue of our time is simply not an acceptable view for a conservative public servant.
Ms. Rice has other problems. She is in favor of civil unions, which is problematic because it is a way of normalizing behavior that the Judeo-Christian tradition she claims to embrace has always considered to be immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.
Ms. Rice thinks it's "terrifying" to blend religion and politics, which means she rejects George Washington's conviction that "religion and morality" are "indispensable supports" of "political prosperity." In other words, in Washington's worldview political prosperity rests on the firm foundation of Judeo-Christian conviction and moral values. Condi begs to differ. If we want to get back to the values of the Founders, Condi is not going to help us get there.
Ms. Rice is also in favor of racism in college admissions, and believes, contrary to Martin Luther King, Jr., that preferences in college admissions should continue to be granted on the basis of skin color rather than merit.
She is also too green for Romney's own good. She was, for instance, critical of President Bush for not supporting the disastrous Kyoto Protocol and wants us to move away from "the Gordian knot of fossil fuels" She would make our problems with the Enviro-Nazis at the EPA worse instead of better.
So Ms. Rice, as appealing as she might be at first glance, is pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-affirmative action, and pro-green. In other words, she would make a terrible choice as a running mate for a candidate who already suffers from a serious enthusiasm deficit with the base.
After running into a buzzsaw when he announced the choice of Ric Grenell, a same-sex marriage crusader, to a prominent campaign position, I suspect the governor decided to be a bit more careful this time around. His campaign likely floated her name as a trial balloon, to see what kind of response her name would generate from conservative voters.
Gov. Romney himself would be tickled pink with Rice, since she shares his near-absolute lack of conviction on moral values. But by leaking her name to Drudge, Romney's folks can gauge the weather before buying the umbrella.
It's a shrewd move on Romney's part, but this is a trial balloon that needs to be shot out of the sky.
The pro-life, pro-family community needs to speak firmly and clearly with one voice: when it comes to Condoleezza Rice as a vice-presidential candidate, the answer is, "No, no, a thousand times no."
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
