I admire Ms. Rice a lot; I think she’s a smart and accomplished lady who can really wear a slit-skirt and boots.
But I have often found it odd that, when speaking, she so frequently sounds breathless and a little afraid. Even in this audio which purports to be what has piqued the interest of the Romney camp.
The rumors had Twitter very busy last night and Facebook is chattering, today; apparently Limbaugh says it might be Condi. Noonan makes a pretty good argument for why it should be Condi, and a friend of mine says he’d rather see her at the top of the ticket, but for most part the stuff appearing in the timelines is all pretty predictable. Some on the right have already disqualified her as insufficiently pro-life; some from the left are already making their snarky insinuations about Rice never having married, which — because she has an R after her name — is highly suspect and there’s something wrong with.
Let’s be frank. Condoleeza Rice is as qualified as anyone to be Vice President and would be a damn sight less buffoonish in the office than Joe Biden. She is a graceful diplomat, a fine academic; she is knowledgeable, savvy, internationally experienced; with Putin ascending, her formidable understanding of Russia and the Russian mind and history could be invaluable. The troops love her and would accept her as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, Ms. Rice is a good deal more qualified to be president than perhaps either Mr. Romney — for all his business experience — or Mr. Obama, who nearly four years into the gig still seems not to have a handle on the office, its limits or its nuances, and who looks, increasingly, like a man who wishes it would all go away and let him play golf.
But then I’ve always said that Obama would prefer to be a prince rather than a president.
But here is why the notion of Condoleeza Rice as veep will be every bit as unpalatable to the Democrats and the press (yes, I am redundant) and why — if the idea looks like it could become reality — they will go as full-bore-savage-destruction on Rice as they did on Sarah Palin. Four words: she is a woman.
She is a woman with an R after her name. As Veep she could conceivably become the First Female President of the United States, and there is no way the press or the Democrats will allow the possibility of that first, historic presidency being bestowed upon any but a Democrat. It is, for them, the natural arc of their narrative. And while in some minds, that first female (Democrat) president can only be Hillary Clinton, anyone will do in a pinch. When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the truly idiotic Gail Collins wrote in the New York Times that President Bush should immediately vacate his office because matters were simply too urgent to wait for January of ’09 — that The One’s brilliance needed to be applied immediately to all of our pressing problems. In this case, Collins reasoned, even Nancy Pelosi would do for the interim:
Any true Scotsman will tell you that “real” women and “real” black Americans are Democrats. This, of course, means that Ms. Rice will be devalued in the press and among liberals with the most vile of vitriol. They would call her evil, racist, sexist names. And the purpose of that will not so much be to hurt Ms. Rice, but to keep their own people in line. The subtle message would be that if you are a black woman and you go off the liberal plantation, that you are a “double” traitor; a traitor to both your gender and your race. That’s how they keep their people under control. The message would be “if you move to the other side, the names we are calling Ms. Rice will also apply to you, so you had better sit tight and do as we expect you to do”.
In other words, I believe such rhetoric is rooted more in fear of a key clientele becoming diminished than in confidence of defeating a potential Romney/Rice candidacy. The Democrats are racists of the most wretched sort; they keep groups segregated into second-class citizens by “giving” them so much that there is no need for them to strive to obtain things on their own. The Democrats are “helping” them to death. And once they are dependent or even expectant of these “gifts”, they lock the Democrats into power to keep the gravy coming. A person who obtains things(such as wealth) on their own through their own hard work is less likely to want to preserve those things and is less beholden to a party for their success. So the notion of successful black Americans is a scary proposition to Democrats because they are likely to become Republicans. The way to ensure they remain Democrats is to make sure they remain dependent on “programs” supported by Democrats.
It is said that a politician would send you to hell and have you looking forward to the trip. The Democrats have mastered that with various demographic groups of voters and the notion of a black woman running as a Republican cracks a major foundation of their strategy. Therefore, Ms. Rice can’t possible be a “real” black woman who makes her own choices and sees herself as just as American as everyone else. She apparently doesn’t see herself as a “special” American requiring “special” treatment that only the Democrats can offer.
The Democrats have truly become an insidiously racist party with an Orwellian strategy. They keep minorities down by keeping them “special” and preventing them from assimilating into the general culture of the country. The “melting pot” that was a primary feature of American strength is their worst enemy. They see a world of hyphenated Americans where each prefix has their own set of special interest issues used to keep them separate and out of the mainstream. I say that one of these hyphenated Americans only fully “arrives”, loses the hyphen and becomes a full, true American only when they abandon the Democratic Party that holds them back.
crosspatch
yes it sure look like they keep them under their carpet,.
it remind me of not so far ago, that teacher was inciting the students to hate the couple of white students in her class because as she said, they are not like us,
and one student had gas thrown at him and the two black 13teen lit the match on that young 13teen,
he was in front of his house running away from them after class, and he had the smart reaction to lift his coat to cover his face in fire, but still will carry the mark of the burn
she said they’re not like us, who taught that to her to begin with?
“who taught that to her to begin with?”
It is quite likely that nobody taught her that specifically but they did set her in that direction and taken out of context with what happened because of what she said, it would likely be cheered by many of her “progressive” peers. In other words, if one were to have recorded what she said in that classroom and played that at a teachers’ union or Democratic Party function, it would probably get a standing ovation. She was probably just doing what she thought she should do to be a “good progressive”. If, after those people were finished with their ovations and cheers and began to take their seats, they were shown what happened as a result of those words, it might cause the decent ones among them to take pause and consider just exactly what it is that they are alining themselves with.
That is, I suppose, what baffles me so about the “progressives” these days. They espouse this rhetoric of “empowerment” and claim to be “helping” people and yet they appear to be the most vile, most corrupt people this country has seen in a century or more. An example of that can be seen over at Hot Air’s “Green Room” where there is an article about a teachers’ union chief who bilked the county taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and also engaged in campaign fraud by “reimbursing” union members for contributions to the union PAC. This reminds me of a posting I saw yesterday over at the Jawa Report where you have an Islamic cleric justifying things that are forbidden as being permissible if they are furthering the larger agenda of “jihad”. So lying is forbidden but if one must lie to further their agenda, then it is permissible. I see the same behavior with “progressives” who seem to feel that some eggs must be broken to make an omelet.
This is no longer about differences in policy directions for me. It isn’t politics. This isn’t my father’s Democratic Party anymore. These people have become despicable, lying, cheating, corrupt animals who are using people to further an agenda that would horrify the likes of JFK or Harry Truman. This is at the level of basic civil decency. Nothing is off limits to these people if it furthers their agenda as we seen with the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens possibly to justify a domestic arms control agenda. It is ok to steal votes as we have seen over the past month or two in New Mexico, Texas, and New York state as long as you are doing it for the “progressive” cause.
Decent citizens who are Democrats need to take a good, hard, long look at what these people are actually doing and ask themselves if they really want to align with these people. They are just plain despicable.
CROSSPATCH
YOU ARE SO RIGHT, AND IT WAS SAID THAT MANY DEMOCRATS are distancing themselves from the
OBAMA AND GROUPS, THEY ARE CERTAINLY BECOMING ASHAMED OF THEIR OWN PARTY, AND ALSO THOSE HAVE JOINED IN THE VOTE FOR HEALTHCARE REPEAL,
AND EVEN THE FAST AND FURIOUS VOTES HAD SOME DEMOCRATS JOINING,
IT IS TELLING THAT THE PROBLEM IS ON THAT PARTY NOT HERE,
BYE
In New York State there is currently a ballot fraud case where it is said that ballot fraud is a “normal course of business”. In New Mexico there is a case of not only vote fraud but just about every sort of political dirty tricks you can imagine including outright intimidation. In Texas we see a case where 18 “voters” in a recent primary would have had to be over 110 years old as their dates of birth on the registration rolls were 1900 and 1901. These are 18 votes cast in an election decided by 19 votes. That county, upon closer inspection, shows over 300 “voters” over 100 years old on the rolls. And here in Florida we see union money being laundered through members into the PAC. Then yesterday we hear about a criminal investigation of some sort into the doings of the city of San Bernardino. Come on, people, wake up. Yes, there is a “culture of corruption” but because the press has been so focused on Republicans and not holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire, the Democrats now own that culture.
NOTE FOR THE PRESS: Want to return to the “glory days” of Watergate and the Pentagon papers when journalists were respected? Then expose this mess. Bust it wide open. Shine the light of your communications medium on what is going on or are you actually a part of the corruption? This is why the Internet is eating your lunch.
crosspatch
as you mention, the BLOGS LIKE THIS ONE ARE COMING MORE READ
THAN THE MEDIAS NOW, THEY THE MEDIAS come later on the news which they ‘d rather not publish,
because they are afraid to wet their feet, but if the public is on alert, they will publish their sides of the story. because they are force in it
bye
I don’t have anything against former Secretary Rice but I don’t think Romney should look back. She does carry baggage from the past. It’s hard for me to forget she missed the warnings about the plan to crash planes into the trade center. Of course, the first Dim accusation would be that the Republican’s are pandering by selecting a black person. I really like Rubio but apparently he will have citizenship qualification issues. Frankly, I don’t see any potential VP candidate as a deal breaker. I trust the Romney team to completely vett anyone they choose.
I don’t believe the Romney campaign is considering Rice for the job at all. This was a favor Drudge did to get people off the Bain Capital issue, in my opinion. Rice has said very clearly she doesn’t want the job. She turned down an offer to be appointed Senator in California because it was offered only under the stipulation that she run for the office after being appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy. She refused. That’s how Feinstein got the seat. She isn’t a politician. She doesn’t want to be a politician.
Makes sense. Thanks for your input.
Condoleezza Rice on the Issues.
Abortion:
Mildly pro-choice, with many restrictions. (Oct 2005)
We need a culture that respects life. (Mar 2005)
Libertarian on abortion; don’t force views on others. (Mar 2005)
Budget & Economy
More spending cuts than tax increases. (Feb 2012)
Too much cut from international affairs budget. (Nov 2011)
US has not lost its edge; problems will work their way out. (May 2008)
Civil Rights
Same-sex civil unions, but not marriage. (Feb 2012)
Supports civil unions but not gay marriage. (Dec 2010)
Urges respect & sensitivity in same-sex marriage debate. (Jun 2006)
Advocates respect for all when discussing gay marriage. (Jun 2006)
Message of her candidacy: no ceiling for blacks. (Oct 2005)
Supports college affirmative action, as beneficiary herself. (Oct 2005)
Race-neutral preferable, but use race factors until achieved. (Jan 2003)
Education
National standards rather than local school curriculum. (Feb 2012)
Encourage critical languages: Faris, Chinese, Arabic. (Nov 2011)
Spotlight the importance of foreign exchange student program. (Nov 2011)
Started after-school program in East Palo Alto. (Oct 2007)
Experienced educator, as teacher and administrator. (Oct 2005)
Keep funding for arts in school budgets. (May 2005)
Economic class means nothing in US colleges. (Jun 2000)
On Energy, Oil & the Enviroment
Strong investment in renewable energy like wind and solar. (Feb 2012)
Kyoto Protocol fatally flawed, but address climate change. (Nov 2011)
Diversify supply to non-carbon-based sources. (May 2008)
Increase refining capacity & domestic resources; use nuclear. (May 2008)
Reducing our reliance on oil; it distorts world politics. (Apr 2006)
Bring to market transformational energy technologies. (Feb 2005)
Protect natural resources, but also for benefit of humanity. (Feb 2012)
Foreign Policy
Listen to other countries before pursuing US interests. (Feb 2012)
Development assistance should support US objectives. (Nov 2011)
Channel Arab Spring into positive development. (Nov 2011)
Support democratic aspirations abroad, not just stability. (Nov 2011)
Be respectful but determined with China on human rights. (Nov 2011)
Liberia is part of U.S. history; stay involved there. (Nov 2011)
Post-WWII push for democratic institutions reflected values. (Nov 2011)
2001 Uzbekistan: Human rights trump security. (Feb 2011)
Bush’s views on foreign policy were one & the same as Rice’s. (May 2008)
Cuba: don’t trade one dictatorship for another. (Aug 2006)
Routine transatlantic relations good for business & people. (Jun 2000)
Redefine national interest, to avoid interest-based policy. (Jun 2000)
Free Trade
Goal is free trade area from Canada to Chile. (Mar 2005)
For mulilateral free trade, but no US-EU trade bloc. (Jun 2000)
Protesting the WTO doesn’t help developing countries. (Jun 2000)
2nd Amendment & Gun Control
Developed opposition to gun control due to KKK. (Oct 2005)
I am a Second Amendment absolutist. (May 2005)
Health Care
Limited role for government providing healthcare insurance. (Feb 2012)
Give people freedom to access their own healthcare. (Jun 2005)
Homeland Security
Bin Laden’s death vindicated CIA interrogation programs. (Nov 2011)
1990s: Dreams of a missile shield died with the Cold War. (Nov 2011)
Apologized for Bush claim of Niger uranium going to Saddam. (Aug 2011)
OpEd: pretended “Who could have known?” on 9/11 intel. (Sep 2010)
OpEd: Falsely claimed no briefing of 9/11 airplane attacks. (Mar 2010)
Pushed for globality of Global War on Terror. (Oct 2005)
To win global war on terror we must win the war of ideas. (Oct 2005)
US was not on a war footing against al Qaeda until Sept. 11. (Mar 2004)
Umbrella of intelligence since Sept. 11 has made us safer. (Mar 2004)
Clarke: Rice never heard of Al Qaeda before 2000. (Mar 2004)
Follow Geneva Convention; but no anti-death penalty promise. (Jul 2003)
Europe should take over some of US’ peacekeeping role. (Jun 2000)
Immigration
Most illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the US. (Feb 2012)
Comprehensive immigration reform, while respecting law. (May 2008)
Immigrants must speak English to succeed. (May 2006)
Committed to border security and smarter screening. (Jan 2006)
No backlash from knowledge-based Asian immigration. (Jun 2000)
Principles & Values
American greatness from values of our forefathers. (Feb 2012)
Played piano as child at church where father was pastor. (Mar 2010)
Only viable Republican who can beat Hillary. (Oct 2005)
Doing layoffs at Stanford: “I don’t do committees”. (Oct 2005)
Faith & prayer guide me on difficult matters. (Mar 2005)
Presbyterian family history led to college and advancement. (Aug 2000)
GOP principles: individuality, family, liberty, strength. (Aug 2000)
Tax Reform
Keep taxation low; tax funds must be well-spent. (Oct 2005)
Technological Rights
Pushed to improve intellectual property rights in China. (Nov 2011)
On War & Peace
Saddam was a cancer in the Mideast, even without WMD. (Nov 2011)
We should have admitted “The 16 Words” were a mistake. (Nov 2011)
FactCheck: No, CIA knew Al Qaeda planned suicide air attack. (Oct 2008)
Consequences via international coalition if Iran keeps nukes. (May 2008)
Iraq is investing in its security; US troops are coming home. (May 2008)
Warned by CIA in July 2001 of major al-Qaeda attack soon. (Oct 2006)
We must keep our word & not abandon Iraqi people. (Apr 2006)
War stops Saddam from beating international community. (Apr 2004)
War on terror will be a long and comprehensive war. (Mar 2004)
War on terror is broad and hence includes Saddam. (Mar 2004)
Supported large-scale war on terror over limited war. (Jun 2003)
Goal is steady progress toward Israel-Palestine peace. (Oct 2001)
Kosovo was both strategic & humanitarian concern for NATO. (Jun 2000)
Global War on Terror
We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. (Oct 2008)
War on Terror is not a war against Islam. (Oct 2001)
Monitor Iraq & take action if Saddam threatens US interests. (Oct 2001)
Syria must decide: either for terrorism or against it. (Oct 2001)
Blocking bin Laden’s propaganda tapes is not censorship. (Oct 2001)
img src=’http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s040_060.gif’(Couldn’t figure out how to imbed the image)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Condoleezza_Rice.htm
@Ditto: I wouldn’t worry about it. It isn’t going to be Rice. I am fairly certain of that.
Curt and friends Condi Rice is no Sarah Palin. The MSM will love her the way they love BHO. She is educated,articulate and very personable. She’s a social moderate and would make Romney very tough to beat.