To stop Hillary, draft Condi...

Status
Not open for further replies.

onerifle

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Messages
176
Location
Texas
Well, it's been discussed here as well as in other forums; perhaps now the idea may actually get some traction...



To stop Hillary, draft Condi
by Dick Morris

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/020905.html


As she tours the continent after her Senate confirmation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is like a rock star — her every movement, her every meeting covered by an adoring media.

America’s first black female secretary of state is doing in public what she has always done in private — speaking frankly about America’s priorities and the realities of the post-Cold War world. As she jokes with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, loosening up his dogmatic anti-American policies, lectures Russia about freedom and warns Israel of tough decisions ahead, one thing is obvious: A star is being born.

Traveling without the entourage customary for secretaries of state, on time, mapping out in advance her first six months of travel, Rice is a new force in American politics.

As the Republican Party casts about for a viable presidential candidate in 2008 to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) out of the White House, attention will inevitably focus on Rice, the woman who may stand between Clinton and the presidency.

Since Bush’s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas. The firm American stand in Iraq will also make more likely success in Korea and Iran, all of which would add to the prestige of Rice.

The political fact is that a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat’s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.

Rice’s credentials for a candidacy are extensive and will grow throughout her tenure at the State Department. As former chancellor of Stanford University, she would have much in common with the pre-political careers of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, presidents of Princeton and Columbia universities. Her service as national security adviser during a war and her current efforts as secretary of state demonstrate her ability to handle crises and to conduct herself with dignity and impact on the world stage.

As a social conservative and deeply religious person, she would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — both of whom could probably win in November — she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP.

America longs to put the period on the disgraceful chapter in our nation’s history that began when the first slave arrived at Jamestown, Va., more than 400 years ago. We also want to send a message to every girl, and every African-American or Hispanic baby, that there is no ceiling and that you can rise as far as your ability will carry you. The day Condi Rice is sworn in as president, regardless of the fate of her administration, that message and the punctuation of our history of racism will be obvious.

Of course, she isn’t running — nor is there any indication that she is harboring thoughts of a candidacy. But as her visibility increases, so will her viability. It may just be possible to draft Condi into the race. A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race. A draft-Condi movement seems almost antiquated in this era of ambitious and self-promoting candidates, but it may well fill a deep need in the electorate to vote for someone who is running in response to a genuine call of the people.

Condi Rice is a work in progress. Her rise has been impelled by her merits and achievements rather than any efforts on her part to curry favor in the media. She is still working and still progressing. But keep your eye on this political star. It is rising and may one day be ascendant.

Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.
As she tours the continent after her Senate confirmation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is like a rock star — her every movement, her every meeting covered by an adoring media.

America’s first black female secretary of state is doing in public what she has always done in private — speaking frankly about America’s priorities and the realities of the post-Cold War world. As she jokes with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, loosening up his dogmatic anti-American policies, lectures Russia about freedom and warns Israel of tough decisions ahead, one thing is obvious: A star is being born.

Traveling without the entourage customary for secretaries of state, on time, mapping out in advance her first six months of travel, Rice is a new force in American politics.

As the Republican Party casts about for a viable presidential candidate in 2008 to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) out of the White House, attention will inevitably focus on Rice, the woman who may stand between Clinton and the presidency.

Since Bush’s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas. The firm American stand in Iraq will also make more likely success in Korea and Iran, all of which would add to the prestige of Rice.

The political fact is that a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat’s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.

Rice’s credentials for a candidacy are extensive and will grow throughout her tenure at the State Department. As former chancellor of Stanford University, she would have much in common with the pre-political careers of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, presidents of Princeton and Columbia universities. Her service as national security adviser during a war and her current efforts as secretary of state demonstrate her ability to handle crises and to conduct herself with dignity and impact on the world stage.

As a social conservative and deeply religious person, she would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — both of whom could probably win in November — she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP.

America longs to put the period on the disgraceful chapter in our nation’s history that began when the first slave arrived at Jamestown, Va., more than 400 years ago. We also want to send a message to every girl, and every African-American or Hispanic baby, that there is no ceiling and that you can rise as far as your ability will carry you. The day Condi Rice is sworn in as president, regardless of the fate of her administration, that message and the punctuation of our history of racism will be obvious.

Of course, she isn’t running — nor is there any indication that she is harboring thoughts of a candidacy. But as her visibility increases, so will her viability. It may just be possible to draft Condi into the race. A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race. A draft-Condi movement seems almost antiquated in this era of ambitious and self-promoting candidates, but it may well fill a deep need in the electorate to vote for someone who is running in response to a genuine call of the people.

Condi Rice is a work in progress. Her rise has been impelled by her merits and achievements rather than any efforts on her part to curry favor in the media. She is still working and still progressing. But keep your eye on this political star. It is rising and may one day be ascendant.

Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.
 
Condi really impressed me she spoke in front of the 9/11 comission. She would have my vote!
 
Rice is a bureaucrat, not a politician, and I am not sure she wants to be president. If she did want to be president, I think she would have run for some office along the way.

It doesn't matter though, the Republican Party won't give her serious consideration anyway.
 
The Repubs are far more likely to give Dr Rice a chance than the Dems are to do the same with any minority in their party. Also, she is obviously being groomed for the position if she should want to run and if the Repub "leadership", such as it is, sees solid support. Judging by the threads on a variety of boards I sure see the support. Based on her views I'd vote for her, that's for certain.
 
I think she would have to run for some elected office first. Possible Vice President though.
 
Eisenhower didn't hold any political office prior to being elected President. He did OK.

Actually, NOT being a career politician is a strong recommendation IMHO. She could easily hire plenty of politicos to help wrangle the congresscritters.

I would vote for her. The three qualities I care about most in a president are smart, honest, and direct. Race and gender are two factors that absolutely don't matter to me.
 
I think it would be hilarious if she won but it seems too risky to me. First black, first woman, is the superbowl the time to try completely new strategies?

If the polling shows that she can win, I dont have anything against her running, but I would advise lots of polling beforehand to be sure she has as hot. Also, what are her views on federalism and also gun control?
 
She is a conservative with a strong Libertarian bent. She has stated she is an "absolutist" on the 2nd amendment, she is pro-choice only so far as abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest and the LIFE of the mother, she frowns on the idea of affirmative action.
 
I think it would be hilarious if she won but it seems too risky to me. First black, first woman, is the superbowl the time to try completely new strategies?

Yea, cause Clinton was a white guy and that really worked well for us.

What exactly is the difference do either of those traits make? Or are we just opposed to intelligent, conservative people in the White House?
 
As far as I am concerned, Dr. Rice would make a formidable Candidate for any Democrat to run against. I would have no qualms in voting for her should she decide to run for President, with one small reservation. I have read that she is an Absolutist on the 2nd. amendment, and if that means she holds the 2nd. to be an individual right and not a collective one then she gets my wholehearted endorsement. I would just once, like to hear a candidate say with no politco babble "The rights of each individual to own, and carry weapons for all legal purposes with no exceptions shall not be denied by any government, Local, State, or Federal"
 
Personally I am expecting a big time RINO in 2008. This will be the Republican "compromise*" for 2008 in response to Hillary.




* to the RNC the word "compromise" means; do exactly as the Democrats only less so.
 
I think it would be hilarious if she won but it seems too risky to me. First black, first woman, is the superbowl the time to try completely new strategies?


Yea, cause Clinton was a white guy and that really worked well for us.

What exactly is the difference do either of those traits make? Or are we just opposed to intelligent, conservative people in the White House?

I can't speak for the original author, but I think the reference was not in Dr. Rice's ability to lead this country, instead her ability to win the election. For some reason, I think it will be harder for a lot of Americe to accept a woman over a minority.

I would like to see her in the office, or at least stick around in high profile positions. I agree on the 9/11 hearing, she did very well.
 
She is a conservative with a strong Libertarian bent. She has stated she is an "absolutist" on the 2nd amendment, she is pro-choice only so far as abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest and the LIFE of the mother, she frowns on the idea of affirmative action.


This sums up exactly why she would not win.

We got Bush because the Republicans were afraid of picking anyone more conservative. Rice is to the right of Bush.
 
"Rice is a bureaucrat, not a politician, and I am not sure she wants to be president. If she did want to be president, I think she would have run for some office along the way.

It doesn't matter though, the Republican Party won't give her serious consideration anyway."

She's an extremely intelligent, talented, and well spoken analyst.

She's worked at universities or in D.C. most of her life. Either requires you to be a politician.

The republican party won't give her serious consideration? That's what primarys are for. They let the voters tell the party who the candidate will be. She may or may not get huge amounts of support from the party leaders, but they definately won't come out against her.

I need to hear more about her views on domestic policy before I decide if I'd vote for her personally, but she appears to be one of the more qualified people for the role.
 
We should probably wait and see how she pans out in her new job. While I like what I'm hearing about her so far, and I gained a TON of respect for her after watching the 9/11 hearings, we all know how saying one wrong thing can kill your chances of getting elected in this country. I wonder if her honesty and direct manner of handling things, while the right way to do things, might not be the best for her political career. If she doesn't screw anything up too bad, she's got my vote.
 
She could think of it as a stepping-stone to her (real life) dream job as NFL Commissioner. :)

Seriously, since people started floating this on the 'net a couple of years ago, I've found it intriguing. Right now, I'd vote for her.
 
I think we need Standing Wolf to make another one of his declarations....

Such as "America is smart enough to vote for Dr. Rice in '08".

I.G.B.
 
It's a sad commentary when in a country of nearly 300 million people the best we can come up with are these two.
 
"We got Bush because the Republicans were afraid of picking anyone more conservative."

I don't know; It was my impression that the whole primary process got kind of short circuited in 2000 by the necessity to settle on one particular Republican Republican, in order to defeat McCain's attempt to secure the nomination with crossover votes.

Since the 2008 Democratic primaries are likely to be hotly contested, that's not going to be a real threat.

And why act as it we have nothing to do with the choice? Primary turnouts are usually pathetically low, caucus turnouts even lower; If we set our minds to it, WE could dictate the Republican Presidential candidate in 2008, instead of just accepting whoever the party pukes up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top