However, the Right has already let it be known that this is a nonstarter for many of them. And though I didn't think of it last night, it's obvious what the problem is: Rice is pro-choice. That's pretty much the end of the discussion.
Romney is on the record as saying he would only consider pro-life candidates-that is he has vowed to enforce a litmus test:
"Rice is pro-choice, a fact that immediately disqualifies her from Romney’s list, according to Romney’s own words."
"The Susan B. Anthony List — a pro-life advocacy group — sent TPM this clip of Romney at a September 2011 South Carolina candidate forum, where he said:
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.http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/condi-rice-pro-choice.php?ref=fpb
Host: So more than just expectation — would share those views?
Romney: Yes … that person would share my views, yeah.
So his pick will be pro-life. To be sure, this guy is an expert on breaking his promises but during the election cycle he has been unwilling to disappoint the Right. However there are some good reasons not to support Condi if your a Republican-really the logic against choosing her is impeccable:
"Conservative bloggers are expressing deep skepticism about the possibility of Condoleezza Rice as Mitt Romney’s running mate - both as to the validity of the reports she’s high on the list and her qualifications for the No. 2 spot."
“I don’t know who is hitting the crack rock tonight in the rumor mill, but bull shiitake mushrooms,” RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote. “Condelizza Rice is pro-abortion. She worked for George Bush for eight years.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78477.html#ixzz20WPpHmmA
“Problem one: Bush, Bush, Bush. As I’ve said before, Jeb Bush can’t run for president because he’s related to Dubya but Dubya’s handpicked NSA-turned-Secretary-of-State is A-OK as number two?,” HotAir’s pseudonymous AllahPundit wrote. “Why not double down and promise that Hank Paulson will be back at Treasury if Mitt wins? “
There’s also a general sense in the blogosphere that Rice would bring liabilities to the ticket without delivering any new voters.
“Rice’s views on abortion (she has said that she is ‘mildly pro-choice’) and her years in the Bush administration seem likely to generate controversy, while I’m not seeing any group of voters that she would automatically attract,” National Review’s Katrina Trinko wrote.
“Not only will Romney be defending Bain up through the election, now he’s going to have to be defending Bush and Bush’s policies right up through the election,” conservative talker Mark Levin said last night on his radio show, adding that he meant no offense to Rice.
You got to admit the logic against Rice is hard to argue with. If she were chosen then we'd literally be running against Bush again.