Condi Rumors: True or False?

Condi??? Pfffftt....I don't believe there's any serious move to put her on the ticket with John W McBush:

McBush's liability with many voters is the war. Saddling him with one of the people most responsible for the disaster in Iraq wouldn't help him one bit. He wouldn't be able to argue it's a defensible war that's been poorly managed if he put one of the war's architects on his ticket:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

.
McBush's perceived weakness by a lot of campaign handicappers is that he's seen as out of touch on economic issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk

Condi gives John W McBush nothing on economic issues.
Well, there is one economic issue Rice could talk about; she could explain to the voters that if you want to have an oil tanker named after you--like, say the SS Condoleezza Rice, the best way is to serve on the corporate board of Chevron for several years. America certainly wants more people from the petroleum industry in the White House. Uh huh...
http://salmofork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/rice.jpg

Condi has described herself as "mildly pro-choice". Having her on the ticket would make the GOP's fundie base at least mildly nuts. In fact, there's a decent chance that if McCain even attempted to put her on the ticket, that he wouldn't be able to get her nomination ratified at the GOP convention.

The Wingnuts aren't anywhere close to letting someone even "mildly pro-choice" on their Presidential ticket.

Every couple years or so the GOP talks about how they're going to reach out to attract African-American voters, and this time, by gosh, they really mean it! Whenever they do it, they get credulous reporters to steno the story (Jeff). The GOP never does, of course, so why do they say they're serious about getting a larger share of the Black vote?
The GOPer's say they're reaching out for Black votes to lesson the concerns of swing voters who don't want to be associated with a party that is perceived as uncaring about black people in general.

Do John McCain or conservative republicans respect the moral foundation of this country? The U.S. Constitution was actually designed, among other things, to protect the people of America from misguided government.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Right now, for the first time ever, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative judges have ruled that taxpayers do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women just like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans are invading your privacy every day. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't appear to care about our U.S. constitution, or by extension, the people of our great country.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous "Death with Dignity" law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died, and in fact they were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment for very important reasons.

I am one of millions of people that view this straying from our moral foundations as very bad news for our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election.

Yeah right, like condi wouldn't like the number 2 position. Condoleezza is just bluffing.

We ask so much of our public servants. Considering her performance as former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State, I think we as Americans would be loathe to ask her to give the same level of effort to the job of Vice President. The country can only take so much.

I really doubt that Ms. Rice is seeking a Vice President ticket. Actually she has more experience in being President than Hillary ever thought of having, so I would have no problem with Condi as a V.P. possibility, but it won't happen.

The talk of Dr. Rice for veep is ridiculous. She has publicly stated that she does not want the job. Since she has never run for office. She has never said where she stands on various issues dear to the hearts of Republicans such as abortion rights and affirmative action. Also, there has been considerable, and justified speculation regarding her sexuality. She has never been romantically linked to any man, but she did have a joint bank account and co-own a home with a woman when she was provost at Stanford University.

I would have no problem with a female black veep, even if it turns out she is gay, but many other Republicans would.

But without knowing where she stands on abortion and affirmative action, I would not support her as many other Republicans likewise.

Condi would be an excellent choice. I have great respect for her.

A black woman. Wake up fellow dems, I hate to be the bucket of ice water, but she's got what the top contenders have got going for them, including international relations experience. Extremely f----- up international relations experience, but maybe that's what America deserves. Think about it.

The talk of Dr. Rice for veep is ridiculous. She has publicly stated that she does not want the job. Since she has never run for office. She has never said where she stands on various issues dear to the hearts of Republicans such as abortion rights and affirmative action. Also, there has been considerable, and justified speculation regarding her sexuality. She has never been romantically linked to any man, but she did have a joint bank account and co-own a home with a woman when she was provost at Stanford University.

I would have no problem with a female black veep, even if it turns out she is gay, but many other Republicans would.

But without knowing where she stands on abortion and affirmative action, I would not support her as many other Republicans likewise.

Posted by: Daniel P. From Long Island, N.Y. | April 7, 2008 8:37 PM

Daniel P beat me to it. I'm sure Dr Rice has better things to do with her time like lying to congress. I hear she plays a mean piano with her room-mate though. Get real.

Mark Senor has run the risk of hurting his credibility with this. Rice was slated to be at that Norquist meeting months beforehand, and these rumors seem unfounded.

Bush got some terrible advice from Condi. She is a charter member of the group of screw ups that got in this mess . She could be described as the mother of the Iraq war. A casual liar remembered for her "mushroom cloud' remark, designed to frighten the public .An ineffectual National Security Advisor that functioned as a President preener. Does she have credibility with anyone but Bush?

Would not know if this is an ideal forn Condeleeza Rice or not. I am thinking, though, that it would be somewhat problematic for some of you democrats that need race and gender as your special in the hold cards. In general, the Secretary of State has difficult issues to deal with every day unlike worthless yakety-yak senators and their long recesses. Downtime is probably a rare luxury.

Daniel P, allow me to make a correction on the social life of Miss Rice. Don't know about that other stuff, but she has had a boyfriend or boyfriends in the past, if not now. I think that her typical day is greeting President Bush in the early morning and turning off the lights at night, in this critical and thankless position, America.

Probably would not mean anything to the 95% of black voters that always vote democrat with regard to nothing, (Lynn Swann and Michael Steele, easy examples), but I hope that she IS in the mix. She HAS met and dealt with World leaders and World issues. Knows the ring-tone on the 3:00 a.m. phone, if it did ring, I would say.

I hate to agree with Kenny, John E and logic prisoner but I can't say I want Rice for Veep. Do we REALLY want someone on the ticket who would run the country like she's run the state department for the past year or so? Especially if McCain only served on term?

Give me John Kasich or Don Carcieri any day over her.

As one of the shameless liars at the heart of the Bush-lead Iraq Debacle, Rice would make an *excellent* VP candidate for John McCain. After all, he is the only remaining presidential candidate who thought - and STILL thinks - invading Iraq was a really good idea. The last sign anyone would need (if any were needed) that McCain has appalling, even lethal, judgment, would be his selection of Ms. Rice as his running mate.

Allying himself with one of the core liars about nukes, WMD - the whole package - would probably be the single most honest thing McCain could do at this point, given he has signed up for the rest of their fraudulent programme of military adventurism.

Rice has been romantically linked to men. In the January 08 Glamour under "3 Condi Surprises" it was noted by The New York Times Washington reporter Elizabeth Bumiller- author of a book on Rice- that 1. she does have a domestic life. "She had plans to marry a player from the Denver Broncos and she does have a long-term friend (former NFL player Gene Washington) who she sees more so than people realize..he's not just an escort." 2. Career mindedness runs in her family. Long line of highly educated tough minded Southern women who married late or not at all. 3. Yes, she may consider running for office...vp slot..but war support could be a problem. Her senior staff has expressed interest in her running for gov of California- but she's focused on the Middle East for now...

I would not be surprised if she went on to be gov and then ran for the WH eight years from now.

She's perfect for him. Bull-headed, believes in myths, and is an advocate for imperial wars.

She would perfectly represent the continuity between McCain and Bush.

She could even keep this old reprobate skirt-chaser company on the campaign trail.

Ms. Rice is more qualified to run for president than any of the current contenders. Historically, it was the Secretary of State post that was considered the apprentice position to the Presidency. I am staunchly pro-life but do not see this as a sticking point provided Condi would continue W's legacy of appointing strict constructionist judges.

It's ironic that the lefties want to judge a woman of Rice's credentials and character. She grew up in the segregated South and succeeded because her parents -- both educators -- sacrificed on her behalf. She earned degrees with honors at the University of Denver and her PhD at Notre Dame. She was a Democrat until 1982, after Carter's foreign policy debacles for which today's lefty candidates have a nostalgic longing. She even worked for Gary Hart in 1984. She worked as a professor at Stanford and eventually was elevated to Provost. Condi has succeeded in all of the lefty establishments, all the while maintaining her independence.

We Americans have far too short an attention span. Our lack of patience blinds us to global historical realities. America has strategic interests in a stable, democratic, and yes, western-friendly Iraq to serve as a front against Islamic extremists/Iran, not to mention Russia and China, who would leverage an unstable Middle East to further their own goals of regional domination and access to petroleum resources. The US has little to gain from imperialism or even mercanitilism in the Middle East. Rather, we prefer stability and free trade. Condi is best equipped to understand and advance American interests as she best understands the regional interests to negotiate win-win deals.

Heavenhelpus:

McCain-Rice......Heaven Help Us! Why don't you drink more kool aid.

heavenhelpus,

I think folks can look up her c.v. on the Internet for themselves if they're interested.

Almost none of what you wrote supports the notion you assert of her being most qualified.

CONDOLEEZZA'S NONSENSE ABOUT DEMOCRACY

John Chuckman

Condoleezza Rice wants to bring democracy to the Middle East. Ms. Rice, an expert on what is now an obsolete subject, the Soviet Union, believes this can be done the way the United States brought democracy to Chile or Iran or Afghanistan - that is, by violently overthrowing governments.

Does democracy come from the full belly of a B-52 and the murderous aftermath of coups?

Apparently not. Virtually none of the countries that America's freedom-loving army of enlightenment has bombed and shot-up over the last sixty years is today a democracy.
One is reminded of the claims of Napoleonic France that it was spreading revolutionary principles by conquest. The conquest part was vigorously pursued, but the liberté, egalitié, et fraternité part left a little something to be desired.

Ms. Rice displays little understanding of the history of democracy or of the circumstances which make it possible. She is not alone in this. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's efforts on "democracy initiatives" displayed a similar lack of understanding, although it must be said in Ms. Albright's favor, she was less inclined than the ever-hysterical Ms. Rice to classify unprovoked attack by a great power as an initiative for democracy.

Democracy is simply a natural development of a healthy, growing society. Over the long term, it requires no revolution, no coup, and no sacred writ. It grows and blooms as automatically as flower seeds tossed in a good patch of earth, although it is a plant whose maturity is measured in human lifetimes rather than seasons.

The early United States after its revolution was no more a democracy than was the Mother Country. The authority of Britain's monarchy had long been limited by the growing authority of Parliaments. Even that mighty ruler, Elizabeth I, more than a century and a half before George III and the American Revolution, felt the limits of Parliament closing in on her.

George III, despite later American myths, was very much a constitutionally-limited monarch. For some time, up to and during the Revolution, there were many prominent American colonists who felt that the machinations of the British Parliament were thwarting the intentions of the king and endangering the health of the empire. Even at that early time, people understood that elected government was just as capable of bad policy as a royal one or an aristocratic one. Indeed, the genius of the British (unwritten) constitution was seen by most thoughtful American colonists as being in the way it combined the three forms of government to offset each other, the direct origin of the American concept of "checks and balances" by branches of government.

While the British franchise was then highly restricted, it was no less so in the early United States. It is estimated that maybe 1% of the population could vote in early Virginia with all the restrictions of age, sex, race, and ownership of property. That's actually roughly comparable to the percentage of people making decisions in contemporary Communist China where about 60 million party members hold sway over about 1.2 billion people.

The American Revolution did not produce anything resembling a democracy. Nor did the later Constitutional Convention. It took about two hundred years of growth and change in the United States for that to happen. The powerful Senate, able to block the elected President's appointments and treaties, only changed from being an appointed body to an elected one in 1913. The Senate to this day uses undemocratic operating rules and bizarre election patterns to shield it against public opinion.

The popular vote for President did not matter originally. Apart from the fact that only a small number of males meeting property requirements could vote, the members of the Electoral College, drawn from political elites, were the ones whose votes actually counted. This absurdly out-of-date and anti-democratic institution still exists, and it can cause serious problems as we saw in the election of 2000.

Women only got the vote in 1920. Blacks in the American South only received an effective franchise a few decades ago. In some places, like parts of Florida, recent elections suggest that methods may still operate to limit the franchise of black citizens.

America has two parties sharing a quasi-monopoly on political power, and they produce much the same effects in the body politic that quasi-monopolies produce in the market place. The two quasi-monopoly parties are financed through a corrupt system of private donations. America herself still has a considerable way to go along the path to democracy.

Yet Americans generally believe that their Revolution and Constitutional Convention created a full-blown democracy and near-perfect system of government right from the start. Perhaps this explains the blind faith of people like Ms. Rice in thinking that if you just have a big war or coup somewhere, you can create a democracy.

Democracy comes gradually because it represents a massive social change that affects all relationships in society. The chief driving force towards democracy is the emergence of a strong middle class whose members have too much at stake to leave decisions to a king or group of aristocrats. The size of the middle class expands by steady economic growth. In the West, this process of change has proceeded steadily since the Renaissance and the rise of science and applied technology, with variations in the pattern of individual countries reflecting adjustments to peculiarities of local culture, invasions, civil wars, and varying rates of economic change.

Many of the societies America looks askance at in the world today make no progress towards democracy because they make little progress of any kind, especially economic progress. Static societies with little or no economic growth are ones where ancient customs and social relationships do not change, where kings or warlords rule just as they did thousands of years ago in early societies.

Economic growth is like a magical solvent that begins to erode old relationships. And given enough of it, over a considerable period of time, it erodes old ways of governing completely. This process is observable even within regions of a country. The American South was remarkably backward and static for a good part of the 20th century. But the shift of business and middle-class populations to the sunbelt during the middle of the century brought some rapid change - ergo, the phenomenon known as the New South.

It has been said that if, in the wake of 9/11, the United States truly had wanted to battle for democracy and human rights, it would have dropped dollar bills rather than bombs on Afghanistan. That, of course, is an exaggeration, but it contains important truth.

The United States could make a genuine contribution to the spread of democracy were it to focus attention on the economies of the world's more backward places. It might start with some generosity in foreign aid. The United States is the stingiest of all advanced countries in giving economic assistance to poor countries, giving at an annual rate of 1/10 of one percent of its GDP.

Reducing or doing away with American agricultural subsidies that impoverish third-world farmers would also be a great help. So, too, the tariff and non-tariff barriers that the U.S. uses against many products from these struggling countries.

Paying its dues to the United Nations and ending its childish carping about that important institution would help, since U.N. agencies perform many valuable services for the world's children, its refugees, and international cooperation and understanding.

In general, concern for democracy calls for the U.S. to start behaving more like a responsible neighbor in the international community and rather less like an 18th century French aristocrat who barely notices as his carriage thumps over the body of whoever happened to be in its path.

HEAVENHELPUS @ 10:42 a.m.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

As always, I can appreciate the history also. Jefferson, America's 3rd president, served as the first American Secretay of State for Washington. James Madison was Jefferson's Secretary of State. James Monroe was Madison's Secretary of State. This is not a trivial position. Would not conjure that the profoundly history-challenged Reverend Wright, or his minions, would have not even a clue. The factual part, of course, would be the first non-tenable problem for them.

HHU, You have FAR more dedication than I do, in presenting a sensible argument to the Socialists and American Hate-ers. But alas, Yorick, we are no doubt wasting our time in engaging in any facts or ideological reasoning with these Marxists. Thanks!

Good pic of Bush's Dragon Lady. Her fangs protrude scarily. Hide it from the kids.

Scott-Houston and HHU,

Thanks for the early history lessons. The last S of S to be elected President was James Buchanan in 1857, and he was a bad one. It's 2008 for Christ sake and Condi has been a central player in the most incompetent, corrupt Administration this Country has ever seen. Also Scott, I guess freedom of speech is a Marxist position. If you want to call people who oppose Bush and his minions Marxist, then you surely are a fascist.

WOW! Run John and Condi RUN! Whoohoo add to the meelee. I love politics. I can't wait to see the History Channel special on this one in 10 years. Good Grief this has nothing to do with Rev. Wright already. Let's hope this ticket happens.

Heavenhelpus is in a "happy place" in life. A place she fills with happy things and happy thoughts...enough so to blot out the realities of the American Empire and what it has wrought.

Heavenhelpus stay happy, stay indoors and (god?) bless your blissful little self.

Rice and McCain together !!! Wow we would really sink deeper into domestic despair and imperialism.Wake up people please !!! Our country going to pieces because of a bunch of greedy Republican Businessmen who could care less about their so call base the white male who most are working class. I am an American and cannot stand to see these so called pure Americans use social prejudice and international problems to cover up there stealing and abuse of power.

Bet I'm not the only one who see the Republicans game plan. I am an independent voter and vote for the best candidate. I definetly don't care about a person race or gender in making my choice.
Hillary or Obama but definetly not McCain (McBush). Yes I voted for Bush and regret it !!! Watch what happens come Novmber.

The dim wit who wants a never ending war in the Mid East and the lady who can make it happen, a match made in heaven.