Article

2005-03-12 Home Front: Politix

Condi Doesn't Say 'No' To Presidency....

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-03-12 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Condi vs. the Hildebeast? Do you think the Dims would see the irony of a female, minority candidate being a Republican?

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-12 12:18:00 AM|| 2005-03-12 12:18:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I wonder if she actually said 'Libertarian'.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-12 12:33:22 AM|| 2005-03-12 12:33:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 She has my vote. I think that after President Bush, she is the toughest person in Government.

Posted by RWV 2005-03-12 12:39:48 AM|| 2005-03-12 12:39:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Who would you trust more?

Posted by Chef 2005-03-12 1:05:29 AM|| 2005-03-12 1:05:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Not you. Am positive.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-12 1:08:27 AM|| 2005-03-12 1:08:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Condi vs. the Hildebeast? Do you think the Dims would see the irony of a female, minority candidate being a Republican?

Who liberated the slaves? The Republicans. Who gave the right to vote for women? The Republicans. And when the Johnoson administration took its in initiatives about civil rights it was the Republican represntatives who gave it unanimous support while many Democrat represntatives opposed it.

Oh, and who has a KKK senator? The Democrats.

Democrats are not for minorities. They are for big governemnt and for welfare. But a welfare who keeps minorities in their (inferior) place so they don't mix with their betters (the Democrats).

Posted by JFM 2005-03-12 2:29:46 AM|| 2005-03-12 2:29:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 This news ought to upset a certain somebody.
You suppose Hillary wishes Bill weren't in the Hospital, so she'd have someone to throw something at...

"How the f**k could this happen?", the Junior Senator from New York said, as a senior staffer dove for cover when a crashing sound could be heard against the wall ...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-12 4:33:30 AM|| 2005-03-12 4:33:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Do you think the Dims would see the irony of a female, minority candidate being a Republican?

They have already made clear what they think of it. They view her (and any other 'uppity n-r') as a 'oero cookie' (black on the outside, white on the inside), or as a 'house servant' of the whites, or as that slave character on 'Gone with the Wind' (I dont know nuttin about no babies!).

They can't fathom her being damn smart with a PhD. To them a 'minority' is too stupid to get through college without their 'affirmitive action' help.

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-03-12 5:41:18 AM|| 2005-03-12 5:41:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 The thought of her running makes me all tingly. Can't wait for the barrage of hypocracy from the left.
Imagine 2 straight shooting no BS American presidents in a row? Just the sort of thing that's needed to illustrate the Clintoon "legacy".

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-03-12 7:15:49 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:15:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 She should run for governor of Caliphornia first.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-12 7:30:57 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:30:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm going to disagree with you on that one, Mrs. D.

In ordinary times, I would agree that she should run for another office first. During the GWOT, the need for someone with strong defense, international relations and negotiating skills overrides the question of domestic politics. Since I think it's going to be a loooonnnngggg decade or so for us, I'm behind Condi all the way.

Or do you WANT to see Hillary in the White House? Heh ....

Posted by too true 2005-03-12 7:44:29 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:44:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I am still concerned that a black woman is unelectable as POTUS. I would dearly love that she were/is. Condi's substance and symbolism would send a devastating message to many especially the Left
Disclaimer: I am not an American.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-12 7:48:10 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:48:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Yes. It would be the final nails in the coffin of the Great Society artists. She couldn't do anything permanent with a Republican legislature. She would become a frustrated embarassment. Bush will have taken care of Iran and Nork by then. After one term we'd get two terms of Condi with no more Robert KKK Byrd, Paul Sarbanes, etc. Pelosi and Kennedy should have completed their self-embalming by then.

I'd rather a one term Hilly and a two term Condi than the opposite.

I'm also not convinced Hillary will win the nomination. Vilsack or Beredsen, or Easley would make much better candidates. And if she does get the nomination I don't think Hilly can beat Giuliani. And if enough Americans think they want her to pull that lever, I think they deserve to live the experience first hand so they can learn.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-12 7:53:38 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:53:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 phil_b, I think you're wrong about the American people.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-12 7:55:15 AM|| 2005-03-12 7:55:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Mrs. D, I'm not willing to live through 4 years of Hilly. I'm too old and too tired of fighting that crap.

Posted by too true 2005-03-12 8:10:09 AM|| 2005-03-12 8:10:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Mrs D, I didnt say she was unelectable, I said I was concerned about it. My concern is to get an approriate successor to Bush. Right now Condi is far ahead of anyone else in my view, but race and gender are still issues for many people (remember RB is a forum where ideas, articulation and humor outweigh your physical attributes (not that we are aware of them), i.e. we are not typical).

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-12 8:11:36 AM|| 2005-03-12 8:11:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 She need's to be the Mayors' Veep, then President.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-12 8:58:21 AM|| 2005-03-12 8:58:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 +--------------------+
| Rice / Coulter '08 |
+--------------------+

Posted by DMFD 2005-03-12 9:40:12 AM|| 2005-03-12 9:40:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Condi needs to have run an election, called her opponents guttersnipes, won the election, worked with her opponents to pass legislation and govern, face the music of public opinion. Then she can be president. She's done none of the above. Hillary has only done the easy half. Neither is likely to be a successful president without elective executive branch experience.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-12 10:20:37 AM|| 2005-03-12 10:20:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Get yer bumperstickers and start campaigning now:
Rice2008.com

This "racist" Pennsylvania Republican white boy is really looking forward to supporting Lynn Swann (R for PA governor) in '06 and Condi in '08!

I should add every interview or profile I've read of Condi on the issue indicates she is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment as well.

Posted by Dar 2005-03-12 10:33:49 AM|| 2005-03-12 10:33:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Mrs. Davis, having grown up in Iowa with family still there, I can, without hesitation, veto Vilsack. He and his record in Iowa would wilt in the heat of a national campaign. Further, although I live in San Diego, I spend a lot of my time working in the Deep South, Georgia and Alabama and I can say unequivocally that Secretary Rice can carry Southern Republicans. The good old boys that I deal with view her as the next best thing to a third term for W.

Posted by RWV 2005-03-12 12:29:38 PM|| 2005-03-12 12:29:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Ok, Mrs Davis, answer me this....how many elected offices did Eisenhower hold before he became president?

I think he was fairly successful as a president.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-03-12 12:32:48 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/] 2005-03-12 12:32:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Mrs. D.. lets not capitulate to Hillary already!

Posted by Elmoting Granter5118 2005-03-12 1:07:55 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:07:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Blondie, the diference for Ike was he rant this little thing called SHAEF - as political a position as you could get in WW2. And achieved quite well, little thing called Overlord that is far above and beyond any organizational and leadership challenge faced by any current politician, Rumsfeld and the President excepted.

4 years as Sec State is not the equivalent.

Give her 4 years a gov of CA, and then set her loose on the Presidency - that automatically brings California into play, the biggest plum that has been out of reach for Republicans, and puts the Dems on defense in the biggest Blue State there is without giving up the key Red states (FL, OH and TX).

I want her as a full 2 term president. If she runs in 08, thats not going to happen - she will have too much learning on the job stuff gpoing on domestically, and that will hurt her badly, at least initially. And we all know how the anti-repub liberal collectivist MSM will savage even her smallest misstep: she is the bigest rebuke to them that there is - a woman from a minority group who is powerful and independant and not bowing down to them thankfully.

I'd rather Condi get more experiences so she is in a cannot fail, cannot lose position.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I have to agree with OldSpook. I want Condi to be successful, whether she decides to be President or Commissioner of the NFL :-)

To do that she needs some electoral experience. Governor of California would be good (kinda wish she'd run instead of Arnie in the recall, but too late now to argue about that). Even Senator would be okay, because at least that would get her experienced in running a campaign, taking the slings and arrows, etc. Boxer looks mighty vulnerable. Boxer v Condi in 2006 would be a great election to watch. Beating Boxer would make her nationally pre-eminent.

Regardless, Condi needs to run an election or two. She needs to be successful as a governor or senator. Then two terms as President.

As to the Hildebeast, everyone except her keeps forgetting that she has to win her re-election in 2006 first. If she doesn't she's a goner. She's been doing all the right things politically, but she's still vulnerable if either Pataki or Rudy decide to run.

Posted by Steve White 2005-03-12 1:26:25 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:26:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Managing Montgomery, Patton, Bradley, et al for Marshall, Churchill and Roosevelt to conquer France and Germany is a pretty substantial and unusual accomplishment.

I would give Eisenhower only mixed results as a President. Certainly his foreign policy was better than average, but domestic policy included several recessions. He left it to Kennedy to cut war time tax levels.

Regardless of one's opinion of Ike's presidency, he is the exception that proves the rule, being the only president in the 20th century to serve two full terms not to have previously been a governor. Nixon was elected twice, but failed to finish his second term. He also had the good fortune to run against Humphrey and McGovern.

Ike also defeated a former governor, Stevenson, twice. The only other times in the 20th century a non-governor defeated a governor were Harding over Cox, Hoover over Smith, and Bush over Dukakis. All single term presidents, Harding due to death.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-12 1:32:03 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:32:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Lets be realistic - running as a "mildly pro-choice" candidate in the Republican party will not work. What the hell is "mildly pro-choice?" Conservatives will stay at home in droves. My opinion of her changed (for the worse) after reading the Washington Times article.

Posted by JP 2005-03-12 1:50:24 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:50:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 #17. Shipman, instead of VP in '08, what about being GW's veep in 2006 and 2007. Dick Cheney could decide for health reasons to resign next year;Bush could then appoint Condi as Cheney's replacement. There's a ~~rumor~~ speculation that this may happen.

Posted by GK 2005-03-12 3:28:18 PM|| 2005-03-12 3:28:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 GK, that's interesting.

If that doesn't happen, how about: RNC gets worried with 2008 elections looming and no obvious "traditional" (ie not Condoleeza) candidate, so they talk Cheney into running as Prez, with Condi as V.P.

The thinking would be that Cheney represents the Bush administration legacy, and thus attracts the votes of those folks who voted for Bush but would not necessarily vote for "Generic Republican A", and Condi brings the excitement to the ticket.

Posted by Carl in N.H. 2005-03-12 6:25:26 PM|| 2005-03-12 6:25:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 The only way I can see her splitting the abortion difference is a form of "pro-choice/anti-Roe". Her statement that the federal gov't shouldn't be too involved is a step (and correct, too -- I don't think regulation is within Congressional powers).

Posted by someone 2005-03-12 6:31:52 PM|| 2005-03-12 6:31:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 ...Has anyone considered the possibility that SECSTATE Rice might be turned loose during the '06 Congressional elections? If that works half as well as I think it might, you could see the Dhimmicrats drop to 42 or even 41 in the Senate - something that could sink any Dem candidate in'08 and set Rice up as a political powerbroker without her holding elected office.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-03-12 6:57:22 PM|| 2005-03-12 6:57:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Condi running for a Senate seat is a terrible idea. The nature of that body is such that in order to build any sort of record of accomplishment one will have to enter into many temporary alliances of convenience requiring that one routinely vote against one's principles in an attempt to secure larger goals. The nature of that body accounts for the absolutely dismal record of US Senators who've run in Presidential elections. Plus there's also the danger that the built-in 8-12 point lead the Democrats begin with in CA might prove insurmountable for any Republican candidate, much less one so closely associated with this administration (let's face it: W is NOT popular here in California).

Governor of CA is a slightly, but only slightly, better idea. At least it's an executive position where she can lay out her own agenda and set her own course in an attempt to arrive towards her desired goals. That said CA is a mess and our state legislature is over 60% Democrat, most of them of the far left obstructionist variety. She'd either have to follow Arnolds tack (but somehow I can't see her holding a press conferences and calling the legislature "losers" or "girly-men") and attempt to run over them or sell out to build a consensus. Either is a tough road given the political dynamic (read "far left") out here.

I don't see a benefit to her seeking any elected post out of California at this time.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-12 8:11:15 PM|| 2005-03-12 8:11:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 AzCat: I agree, the right platform is the Vice-Presidency. But the real doo-doo starts hitting the fan when she outs herself on racial preferences and the like.

Posted by someone 2005-03-12 8:27:05 PM|| 2005-03-12 8:27:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 She's already on record as being pro-affirmative action. Couple that with her recent statements on abortion and she looks like a less viable candidate simply because she'd have a tough time winning the primaries. But then again that's the problem *all* '08 Republican Presidential candidates face, there are several who'd beat the Hildebeeste but none of them could clear the primary hurdle where the far right holds sway.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-12 9:11:08 PM|| 2005-03-12 9:11:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 She need's to be the Mayors' Veep, then President.

Sorry, Ship and others...I don't mean to pee in the cornflakes, but I do NOT think Rudy G's going to get the Republican nomination in '08, or any other year. I think the Bernie Kerik flap would come back to haunt him, along with his own (ahem) somewhat messy personal life.

I'm not a blue-nosed puritan by any stretch of the imagination...but I think the Republican women would veto him out of hand. I've see it before on a smaller scale - a number of years back, my Congressional district (1st - WA state) was represented by a Republican who was a reeeeeally big pusher of the "family values" schtick. But...and there's always a "but"...he decided to start fooling around with a sweet young piece of twentysomething eye-candy.

And, of course, he made the mistake of showing up in public in this sweetie's company. The District's Republican women activists found out about it and just went ballistic - they immediately got on the jungle telegraph to all their friends and told them not to vote for this guy. One good friend estimates his wife PERSONALLY cost this jackass at least a dozen votes. Soooo...now we're stuck with Jay Inslee - a more politically savvy version of Baghdad Jim McDermott who's probably just as unassailable as Jimbo himself, due to (1) the sizable moonbat population in this district, and (2) a fat war chest that he scarcely had to tap last November.

Be warned, folks. A LOT of women on our side of the aisle heard Ross Perot's judgment of Clinton ("if his wife can't trust him, how can the country?"), and started applying it to our own candidates. They don't expect perfection...but they do expect a basic level of decency in the way they lead their lives.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2005-03-12 9:12:35 PM|| 2005-03-12 9:12:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I fear you're probably right Ricky, I'm hoping for a little selective amnesia.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-12 10:46:31 PM|| 2005-03-12 10:46:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Blondie, the diference for Ike was he rant this little thing called SHAEF - as political a position as you could get in WW2. And achieved quite well, little thing called Overlord that is far above and beyond any organizational and leadership challenge faced by any current politician, Rumsfeld and the President excepted.

4 years as Sec State is not the equivalent.

Give her 4 years a gov of CA, and then set her loose on the Presidency - that automatically brings California into play, the biggest plum that has been out of reach for Republicans, and puts the Dems on defense in the biggest Blue State there is without giving up the key Red states (FL, OH and TX).

I want her as a full 2 term president. If she runs in 08, thats not going to happen - she will have too much learning on the job stuff gpoing on domestically, and that will hurt her badly, at least initially. And we all know how the anti-repub liberal collectivist MSM will savage even her smallest misstep: she is the bigest rebuke to them that there is - a woman from a minority group who is powerful and independant and not bowing down to them thankfully.

I'd rather Condi get more experiences so she is in a cannot fail, cannot lose position.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| 2005-03-12 1:09:18 PM|| Front Page Top

23:23 Dean Wormer
23:10 OldSpook
23:09 Ebbavith Craviter1965
23:08 Atomic Conspiracy
23:06 Biff Wellington
23:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:01 Babson
22:58 Atomic Conspiracy
22:46 Shipman
22:43 OldSpook
22:43 Atomic Conspiracy
22:38 Shipman
22:35 Napoleon II
22:31 Shipman
22:30 Sobiesky
22:28 OldSpook
22:26 Atomic Conspiracy
22:18 FlameBait
22:01 Sobiesky
21:57 Joanne
21:51 Atomic Conspiracy
21:37 Tom
21:33 Tom
21:33 Jonathan