Condi as Veep? Why the Dems, MSM Won’t Stand for It – UPDATED

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 (but interestingly, not Sarah Palin) 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:

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all.

They hated Sarah Palin for many reasons: her lack of an ivy league pedigree or international experience; her twang; her kids; “that child” she should be home raising and so forth. Condi has the ivy pedigree and the international experience; she has no twang; she has no kids to be looking after, but should this Rice Dream become a reality — the press and the Democrats will be equally as apoplectic about her being on a presidential ticket; they will savage her just as mercilessly, unfairly and unjustly. Because it’s not actually about any of those things, and it’s not even about “what’s best for the country.”

It’s about the narrative. A woman cannot be president unless she is a Democrat president, and a veep spot is too close to the Oval for comfort.

UPDATE: On a Facebook timeline there appeared, of course, “Condi is a war criminal.” Oh, tush; if she is, so is the present government. Barack Obama has continued most of Bush’s foreign policies, approved assassination of American citizens, chosen a policy of killing over capture, kept the “gulag” Gitmo open, and how do you like those drones? Mama, they’re all war criminals, now. The Immaculate President has effectively neutralized the “war criminal” charge and taken it out of play.

Glenn Reynolds links. Thanks, Glenn.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Lisa

    Elizabeth, perhaps, but the other reason is more serious – and one that opponents of Obama should be concernerd about as well – Rice’s association with Bush foreign policy. I cannot believe that the Romney campaign wants to spend months rehashing that debacle and being associated with it. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail on this.

    [Obama has continued most of Bush's foreign policies so I am thinking that at this point, it's kind of moot. War criminals? They're all war criminals, now. How do you like the drones? -admin]

  • Suzanne

    It’s not that she’s insufficiently pro-life; it’s that she’s pro- “choice”. I like her as well, and think she is otherwise well qualified. But there is no way I will support a pro-abortion candidate for VP, or a presidential candidate who selects one.

    [That is interesting. Just to play devil's advocate, here (b/c I don't like anyone currently running for anything) When Bush (our most pro-life president, ever) had the WH and both houses, how did that help the pro-life cause? How does rejecting Romney and possibly allowing an Obama re-election help the pro-life cause? My own personal feeling is that the only thing that will help the pro-life cause is having people in office who can talk about the realities of abortion without prejudice, and thereby help to change hearts, which is what will -- in the end -- defeat abortion. I'm just curious about your thoughts, then. Sit out an election and allow Obama four more years, when he is so passionately beholden to abortion and Planned Parenthood? Or vote for a Mushy President w/ "mildly pro-choice" (Condi's words) What is the greater evil? _admin]

  • Victor Erimita

    And of course no black Republican can be allowed to escape especially intense excoriation by the Democrat-media complex. But I have seen Condi hold her own quite well against these people, and in a way that appears more dignified and less smart alecky than Palin. I think she could be a bit of a breakthrough figure in exposing the depths of perfidy and absurdity in the Dem media’s treatment of Republican women and minorities. They can’t credibly call her dumb, one of the two charges always leveled at conservatives. So they’ll have to rely on evil, which will also be a difficult charge to make stick in her case.

  • luagha

    Condoleeza Rice has said over and over in countless interviews and statements that she does not run for office. She doesn’t do popularity contests. She has never run for office and whether or not she has wonderful experiences and skills, she’s not going to start running for office at the Prez of VP level. A simple googlling will make this clear.

    [Lots of people say lots of things, and then decide that circumstances demand that they change their minds. That's life. I try not to live my life by what I can glean from google. -admin]

  • Victor Erimita

    She can also be an effective voice of reason to American blacks caught up in their delusional allegiance to the Democratic Party. She has southern civil rights credentials Obama does not. She grew up in the Jim Crow south, which again, Obama did not. She can cite that background and mak e the argument that, c’mon guys, the Dems are using you while doing nothing for you. She can attack Dem education policy as an example of why blacks should switch. He could be an important transitional figure.

  • http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester jeffmiller

    Surprised you didn’t mention that she is pro-abortion, even if she thinks it is mildly-so. Murder is murder even if you limit what month it occurs in and would place other limits. She is just not acceptable as VP.

    If Romney really is considering her than he is even worse than I thought. Considering his own pro-abortion background it just shows horrible judgment and all his new found pro-life talk is just talk. If this is a trial balloon it needs to be shot down with a nuke. Though it is really a trail ballon, it makes me loose what little confidence in Romney I had.

    [I think it's interesting. Palin is as ardently pro-life as it gets and she is "all for" the idea of Condi. Given that Obama seems to absolutely adore abortion and its purveyors, some might have less of a problem with a "mildly" pro-choice person who says "abortion is terrible", which at least indicates that she is struggling with the issue, than with a president who thinks there is nothing at all wrong with infanticide and thinks a pregnancy is punishment. -admin]

  • Thucydides

    It would almost be worth it simply to watch the Legacy media and the Dems fall all over themselves in contradictions to smear Dr Rice. The incoherent message would pull them even farther off position while Governor Romney continues to point out the horrible economic mess this administration made.

    Dr Rice would flummox them even more with her cool and cerebral style; she isn’t a populist politician like Governor Palin and would never stoop to “their” level and try and mud wrestle with them (not that Governor Palin did that very much, but she wasn’t above throwing a few punches of her own). Dr Rice would be more like a marital arts expert making them move out of position and tripping over their own feet.

    So I’m all for Dr Rice as VP.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    Please, no Condi. She’s not “insufficiently pro-life”; she’s pro-choice, “mildly” so, as she puts it. She doesn’t believe the federal government should step into the issue. That’s a breathtakingly ignorant position for such an accomplished person to take, seeing that the federal government’s having stepped into it in 1973 is the reason we’re in the mess we are today over it. We need to undo what the federal government has already done. Socons, having been increasingly marginalized in the GOP, will be in more than a snit if Mitt doesn’t select a bona fide pro-life socon with a track record. Minor point: Condi doesn’t have an “ivy pedigree.” Bachelor and doctorate from the University of Denver, master’s from Notre Dame. She was an associate prof at Stanford, which is pretty close but not ivy, and she didn’t matriculate there anyway. This is actually a plus for me: I propose a ban on ivies in government, based on Clinton, Obama, some would say senior and/or junior Bush, the wretched Woodrow Wilson, JFK, RFK, Terrible Teddy K, etc etc. Give me a good ol’ Eureka College grad like the Gipper.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    1. I forget to mention the ludicrous Al Gore as one of the best examples of why ivies should not be permitted in government. 2. Thucydides: my wife and I are interested in the “marital arts” you mentioned, LOL.

  • Brown Line

    Rice is, in a way, the anti-Palin: Ivy-league credentialed, black, single, childless, pro-”choice”, former university trustee, former secretary of state, polyglot, and an accomplished pianist. Yet the MSM and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) will bring the hate. Oh, my God, will they ever bring the hate – because she will have dared to contradict the presumptions of those who see themselves as The Good People. I can see the pictures now: Condi as Aunt Jemima. Condi as Mammy from “GWTW”, Condi photoshopped into porn. Sniggers about her sexuality. Squads of reporters digging through her personal and professional records, looking for something, anything, to use against her – and when they don’t find anything, just making stuff up. She would have to be crazy to want the job – though the thought of her debating Slow Joe makes me want to laugh out loud.

  • http://boomushroom.blogspot.com BooMushroom

    The first black senator was Republican, too.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    Dear “Admin.”: How did Bush help? Well, let’s see. He signed the partial birth abortion ban that Clinton vetoed not once but twice. He appointed Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court (admittedly Roberts is starting to scare me a llittle). He used the bully pulpit to advocate the pro-life position. He upheld the Hyde Amendment, which has worldwide implications. It’s not enough to say “abortion is terrible”, which you have quoted Condo as saying. Ted Kennedy said that before and after initiating the Borking process with his “in Robert Bork’s world, women will be forced into back-alley abortions” speech, which fomented a monumental injustice, damaged the Court for a generation, and corrupted the confirmation process perhaps forever. To hold the position that the federal government should stay out of abortion when it is the federal government which made such a mess of it is incredible to me. BTW, I will vote for whoever opposes Obama, but if Mitt picks Condi he’s sending me a bad signal about his claimed epiphany on abortion.

    [Yes, Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban which was immediately stayed; completely ineffective. Are you saying a Romney (or a Rice) could not appoint the equivalent of Alito or Roberts? If you think you're getting a passionate advocate for life in Romney, you're mistaken. He'll ignore the issue as much as he can -admin]

  • Pingback: But it would make for an interesting campaign… | Emigre From A Podunk Outpost

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    BTW, I love the Barracuda, but Sarah Palin as endorser means little to me. Remember, she was all-Newt in the primaries. And Sarah is very invested in the success of woman in politics, so maybe she’s stretching it a little with Condi. I’ll grant she has the most pro-life creds of anyone, seeing that she walks the talk. But I don’t always buy her endorsements.

  • JH in Texas

    I think we need to all get in our heads that Roe v Wade is not going away. I also believe that a combination of Romney and Rice would be farther to the left than I would like but it will be much preferable to the destruction that Obama and his administration have planned for our country. Suzanne says above she won’t support a “pro-abortion” candidate. Rhetorically, will you sit out the election or vote for a proven far worse incumbent? I do not in any way see Dr Rice as “pro-abortion” but with the same beliefs and ideas that I have. As far as her statements that she is not going to run for anything it would be very difficult for her to turn down an offer put to her as “Dr Rice, your country needs you.”

    [I think it's been obvious for a while that Roe v Wade is not going anywhere, which is why President Bush, when addressing pro-lifers during one March for Life said that the only way to end abortion would be to change hearts. Which is correct, btw. Making abortion illegal won't stop them. Bush, btw, was castigated for that speech by Ann Coulter. But he was right. Change hearts, and abortion goes away. And hearts change not from shrill insistence but from information and love. -admin]

  • Marc Delany

    The REPUBLICANS get to pick, not Media, not Democrats. The Republicans will not run a black woman this race, because this is a race, about race… and she’s the wrong race… The core Romney supporters (Mormon Doctrine also – see any pre 1977 “Book of Mormon) are white racists, overtly or covertly….. Rice is a Negro….

    [Zounds! No, really, is she? Do you think she knows? Do you think Romney has figured it out? admin]

  • Kevin M

    Strange as it may seem to some, “Conservative” and “Republican” does not necessarily mean “Pro-Life” or “Christian.” Three are three main issues: economy, foreign policy, and social issues and right now it’s in that order. And social issues are dead last; the current Supreme Court has, at most, 3 votes to overturn Roe/Casey and may have as few as one. The ship has sailed and it’s about time that the Republican Party moved on.

    After all, Ronald Reagan was “mildly pro-choice”, having signed California’s pre-Roe abortion legalization.

    [People forget that about Reagan. His idolators today forget that at one point, Conservatives found him very lacking -admin]

  • Kevin M

    …There are three…

  • Reagan Fan

    Seriously, guys? You’ve had over 40 years since Roe v Wade and you are under the delusional belief that the personal feelings of the VP candidate regarding abortion is the only thing that has been holding you back?

    Can I assume that you have never, ever voted in the last four decades? Even better: I am opposed to abortion for scientific reasons, not religious ones. Would I be acceptable to your little club? After all, I think using the Bible to prove abortion is murder shows a profound lack of intelligence and reading comprehension.

    Do not let the good become the enemy of the perfect. Condi Rice may not be the perfect candidate as far as your little litmus test goes but she is a damn sight better than anyone the Democrats put up there. And as far as every other test, she is more than qualified.

    Run, Condi, run!

  • pete the elder

    Look I am pro life too, but you will sit out this election if a pro choice VP is on the ticket. Seriously? Reelecting Barrack Obama for another 4 years will somehow be better for the prolife cause because…?

    The country is on the course to potential bankruptcy and fiscal collapse and if Obama is reelected he will have 4 more years to appoint pro-choice judges to the supreme court like Kagan and Sotomoyer. Meanwhile if Condi is elected VP in all likelyhood won’t appoint anyone to the supreme court because ***news flash*** the VPs job is to sit in the senate and cast tie breaking votes, show up at occasional public events, and hope the president doesn’t die.

    Please don’t help bankrupt our children’s future by sitting out the election for this reason.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    “Admin”- I already said I will vote for Romney regardless, because of the far greater evil of Obama. But Romney has been presenting himself as having become pro-life. Do I believe him? Sort of halfway maybe. Almost every other VP pick is clearly pro-life. For Mitt to pick the one who isn’t would say something to me that I wouldn’t want to hear. Mitt appointed pro-abortion judges in Mass., refused to stand up for the principle of separation of powers when the Mass. supreme court ordered (!?) the legislature to create the same sex “marriage” bill. He even threatened to fire county clerks of court who refused to issue the “marriage” licenses on moral grounds. This man stands on very shaky ground with the socons. For me, it’s the difference between holding my nose to vote and slapping on a bumper sticker and maybe trying to persuade some people. The enthusiasm gap, one might say. And the VP pick is critical.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    Reagan Fan sounds more like the #1 fan of Reagan Fan.

    Of course, he should be, as he is more intelligent and erudite than those of us who cling to such things as the Bible.

    You would be welcome in my little club if you weren’t so condescending. As it is, you’d have to pass through the hazing-until-you-get-over-yourself process.

  • Suzanne

    Elizabeth, thanks for responding to my comment. To your point, Romney/Rice would be the lesser of two evils and I probably would go out and vote for them on election day. That said…what a disappointment it would be. I’ve read that while involved in his church in MA, Romney counseled pregnant women and pro-life organizations there believe his change of heart on the issue to be authentic. I hope so.

    As far as G.W. Bush, he stopped federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He stopped the use of foreign aid for abortions. He signed the Partial Birth abortion ban. While he governor here in Texas, he lobbied for and passed a parental notification law and vetoed a euthanasia bill. Bush was actually quite Catholic in his approach to many issues (the death penalty being a notable exception).

    Bush also appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court – and I wholeheartedly agree with your column on the merits of Roberts’ Obamacare decision. Roberts led a 9-0 decision affirming religious liberty this past session. I really do not want another Bush Sr. appointing another Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court; Kennedy of course was the decisive vote who opted not overturn Roe v. Wade in 1992.

    [I have always said Bush's reasoning on the embryonic stem cell research question was brilliant and just right. -admin]

  • David

    Simply put, Condi is liberal and incompetent. What accomplishments does she have under her belt? Can anyone name any positive accomplishments? You can’t b/c there aren’t any.

    Don’t tell me that she’s a good pick for any of the following reasons, b/c they are lame:
    A. She’s Ivy League educated.
    B. She’s black.
    C. She’s a woman.
    D. Democrats/Liberals hate her.
    E. Experience under Bush.

    Seriously, if she was a white man, would you like this pick? Compare her to someone intelligent like Col. Allen West and you see how poor of a candidate she is.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd Flowerday

    “(T)here is no way the press or the Democrats will allow the possibility of that first, historic presidency being bestowed upon any but a Democrat.”

    As for the Dems, doh. They’d prefer that every presidency be bestowed on one of their number. Same for the GOP.

    As for the press, they are beholden to their corporate masters. If it sells product, it will be supported. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

  • Iowa Jim

    Condi has the ivy pedigree

    Uh, no, actually, she doesn’t. She does not have a degree from any college or university in the Ivy League (BA, University of Denver, Master’s in Political Science, University of Notre Dame, PhD, University of Denver). She has never been employed by any college or university in the Ivy League. I admire her greatly, and I am particularly proud that she has been nd is currently employed at Stanford University, from which I earned a degree, but she does not have “the ivy pedigree”. The Ivy League consists of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Penn, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

    [I know Stanford grads who will bristle if you suggest they are not ivy! :-) admin]

  • Photoguy

    The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican. This was back when women weren’t allowed to vote, so she was put into office entirely by male voters choosing her over the Democratic Party candidate.

    Did you notice you never see any of that mentioned in the news, or in any textbooks?

  • Bob

    I would prefer Ms. Rice because she would reveal once and for all the real agenda of the left in this country. She has accomplishments that cannot be denigrated, accomplishments superior to those of her opponent, Mr. Biden. I can live with her on the issue of choice.
    And Elizabeth is right in this regard — you don’t/won’t change minds by the force of law, but by the power of loving information.

  • David

    Also,

    1. She plays the piano
    2. She works out.

    All lame reasons, like her. SHES….NOT….QUALIFIED!

    Very weak candidate

  • dry valleys

    If Obama has continued most of Bush’s foreign policies, do conservatives feel silly for having said he’d capitulate to America’s enemies (Romney was one of those doing this in 2009) and had terrorist sympathies? There actually are extreme pacifists who’d say just that about Obama, that he’s a war criminal, which is a view expressed by Ron Paul supporters and the Glenn Greenwalds of this world who will find some pretext for being opposed to everything. Personally I am quite pleased that Bin Laden and Gaddafi were taken out on his watch.

    Rice is, I’m sure, very accomplished. But also right-wing. And this strikes me as an excellent reason to oppose her, or any other Republican. The world might not be as interested as it was in 2008 but it’s obvious that the holder of these offices will have an effect well beyond America’s boundaries.

    About her not being married. I’m not married either, it hardly matters in this day and age (other than to say someone under so much strain is surely better off with someone at home to unburden themselves to). Anyway, I won’t be making a proposal :)

    Romney spoke to the NAACP apparently.

  • tyree

    The pro-life activists have always puzzled me. It does not matter if a President and Vice President are “pro-life” or “pro-abortion”. What matters is who they will nominate as judges to the Supreme and lower courts. Not voting is the course of action the other side wants you to take. Not choosing the lesser evil promotes the greater evil.

  • M Lee

    The first question I would ask, and frankly the answer is known beforehand, what candidate could the republicans run that will not get savaged?

    When you operate from the point of view that your party affiliation makes you a superior being, all sorts of nasty behavior is enabled. It also prevents the necessary self reflection required for a healthy outlook, hence why the party that claims to be the champion of women demonstrates some of the most sexist behavior we have seen recently.

    As for Condi Rice, she is a classy lady, and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I am disappointed that her stance on abortion is what it is, However as a political candidate she would be vastly superior to what is currently in office. Change to the laws regarding abortion I think will have to come from a sea change in attitudes.

  • Sheldon

    MS Rice believes that CO2 causes global warming. Quote: “It was a mistake not to sign the Kyoto Protocol”. Big red flag that demonstrates bad judgement.

  • http://archippus.typepad.com Jim Nagle

    Hey, Kevin: You’ve got social issues dead last; that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. I, along with many others, have them first. There are those of us who believe that the underlying cause of the economic mess we are in is our having abandoned God, in nearly every way imaginable, and that the most blessed nation is history is progressively becoming “unblessed.” God is gradually removing the hedge He has placed around our nation. It is my conviction (shared by many others) that no amount of economic programs or strategies or tinkering will reverse our fall into third-world status as long as we continue to slaughter the innocent and solemnize sodomy. As to Reagan, he came a long way. He was a Democrat and a pro-choicer, but became a Republican and a pro-lifer. Besides, I’m not idolizing Reagan (although I liked him very much). I vote my own conscience. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but let me say this: continuing to marginalize socons as the GOP has been doing is a recipe for political suicide.

  • tyree

    Perhaps she has evolved on that point, Sheldon. Whoever the nominee is, we will need a lot of serious questions and answers about their past qualifications and future plans.

    What we will get is a 3 month analysis of the “Joe the Plumber” and his qualifications to ask questions of a candidate.

  • RebeccaH

    I think Condi Rice is immanently qualified to VP, or President for that matter, and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. But, alas, I believe if the VP slot is offered to her, she’ll decline, for all the reasons you outlined. Who wants to put themselves through the Democratic meat grinder if they don’t have to?

  • virago

    The press and the Obama machine will savage anyone. Why are we so afraid of them? Why do we think we need their imprimatur, their approval and the mantle of their so-called “brilliance”?

    This is and will be about ideas, a battle of differing visions (hence destinies) for these United States. Condalezza Rice will do; their may be others more palatable to individual voters, such as Alan West (my fav), Marco Rubio or the Governor of Wisconsin who name escapes my menopausal mind but nevertheless I will cast my vote for Romney (not my choice) because the alternative is the road to damnation.

    And for those who would sit out the election because of the VP (as many did in 2008 and have lived to regret it) I question your reasoning and your motives.

    There are 2 paths here and the fork in the road is Obama”s tongue and I am taking the right path. Frost, kind of. Take it has you will.

    Now, give me your best shot. I love debate.

    And I don’t think Penn State will allowed to be in the Ivy league club much longer. Sad.

    Respects and Thanks
    V.

  • Luke

    The more I hear about Condi as VEEP the more I like it. I think she rounds out the Romney ticket more than any of the other people I have heard named.

    As for her stance on abortion: sorry, but I am concerned about economic and foreign policy from the executive branch.

  • Constitution First

    The Fascists won’t stand for it because they hate powerful women.

    Despite everything they crow to the contrary, they want sockpuppet that won’t ever stray from the propaganda written on that teleprompter.

    If the SCoaMF that Occupies the Whitehouse now went off message, he’d be under that bus faster than Reverend Wright on greased rails.

  • Kevin M

    >>I, along with many others, have them first. There are those of us who believe that the underlying cause of the economic mess we are in is our having abandoned God, in nearly every way imaginable<<

    It is not that we abandoned God so much as that we sought Him in Washington.

  • dry valleys
  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    I don’t think she would be a good pick. She lacks domestic policy experience, she doesn’t help with any state or demographic (blacks are not going to vote for Romney, period), she hurts with pro-life groups, she’s not a Conservative and Romney isn’t either and he needs one, and she lacks political experience.

    What’s the upside? That she’s an intelligent black woman with foreign policy experience. That’s not much.

    This is all a bluff in my humble opinion. No way is Romney going to pick Condi.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    Oh and another negative is that she perpetuates the Bush war policies. That’s what got Obama elected in the first place.

    [OBAMA perpetuates the Bush war policies. Obama got elected b/c the press hoisted him on their shoulders and carried him into the WH -admin]

  • http://www.patheos.com Amy

    There should be more discussion on changing the Congress. Conservative voices and votes will repeal, override vetoes, keeping whoever is elected President from doing grave harm to this country. Romney wins, it wouldn’t matter if the Congress is made up of liberals who can override his veteos. Power is in the Congress. These past two years have been a disaster as Republicans hold the majority in the House and the Dems the Senate. Time to truly stand up and defend our Freedoms and and Laws of God by changing Congress. Stand up and be Catholic. Be unafraid. Christ is with us. Peace.
    (AP Roundtable.org – July 6th 2012 – give it a listen.

  • Peggy Coffey

    Dr. Rice is intelligent, articulate, and able to hold her own in DC. I don’t see the media making her stammer and stutter, I could see her make mincemeat out of their words. I would vote for her in a minute. But seeing the debate with Biden would be priceless.

  • KW

    Having an elegant, thoughtful and well-spoken statesman like Condi in the White House would go a long way towards sweeping out the beer cans and cobwebs left by the previous incumbents.

    Are there ANY people in government today, on either side, who could in any way be described as ‘graceful and articulate’?

    Maybe not my 1st choice, but I’d happy to see her in there.

    If she’s doesn’t get VP though, I’m not worried. There are lot’s of places in the coming administration where she could (and surely will) do a lot of good.

    Abortion? Whatever. She’s not going to make or break that either way, so it’s just a non-issue to me.

  • CcoastSteve

    As far as I can see, the reason why Condi is putting the Dems pants in a bunch is not historic precedence but votes. Yes, the Dems would like the first black to be a Democrat but they should be used to losing that race (no pun intended). However, the prospect of Chum losing 50% of the black vote in what is shaping up to be a close election is terrifying to them. They regard this voting block to be their private domain and losing a large part of it terrifies them.

  • http://www.anitafinlay.com Anita Finlay

    This is nonsense. You must have forgotten how the MSM and the DNC, led by Pelosi, Reid et al stomped on Hillary and did everything to put their finger on the scales for her inexperienced opponent. Trust me, I have buckets of research on the subject. They don’t want a woman period. Democrats, “the party of women’s progess”, proved they are anything but. The horrid treatment they gave to Hillary, they then gave to Palin two fold.

  • Romulus

    OBAMA perpetuates the Bush war policies.

    So you keep saying. And so what? Catholics are supposed to say “alrighty then”?

    Condi would not be the first overhyped lightweight to veep, and the country could survive that — but apart from her skin color she adds nothing and degrades the marketability of Mitt’s rickety pro-life cred, from “suspension of disbelief” to “willful denial”. The fact that Palin backs Condi anyway proves nothing except that for lamentably large numbers of the militarized neocon “right”, Christianity’s OK as an Sunday religion, but muscular American exceptionalism is what really gives meaning and purpose to their lives.

  • c matt

    c’mon guys, the Dems are using you while doing nothing for you.

    The same could be said about the GOP and pro-lifers. True, a small bone gets tossed to us here and there, but it never really seems to make a difference, as admin has admitted several times already (and ironically, as a basis for continuing to take the meaningless scraps the GOP feeds us).

    Bush war polices:
    True, Obama has continued the Bush war policies, but that is not what got him elected – he ran against it, he got carried by the media, and then he changed his mind (shocker – a politician changing his mind after election, what are the odds?). Regardless, how is poor foreign policy (in which Rice had a hand) somehow a reason to vote for someone just because the current guy is just as bad at it? Honestly, the presidential election is nothing more than a sham, the choice between 100% liberalism and 70% liberalism. I’d almost rather we crash faster and get it over with to restart the building process rather than this tortuously slow, but equally inevitable decline into oblivion.

    Happy Friday 13th.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X