We praise democracy most of the time, but we practice it as if we had accepted every argument against it, as if we believed it must depress the level of culture and of public life
Quote of the day
 Avaaz/Mugabe Petition Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
|
 |
McCain-Rice...A winning ticket for RepublicansIt's becoming clear that a contentious Democrat primary is setting the stage for a Republican victory. Twenty-two percent of Obama supporters want Clinton to withdraw. The same percentage of Clinton supporters want Obama to withdraw and neither are likely to do so. More telling are the percentage of each groups supporters that will likely defect if their candidate loses the nomination. In fact, a shocking 32% of Clinton supporters will seek an alternative to Obama if Clinton is left at the Democrat altar. What would cement a Republican victory? Why a McCain-Rice ticket of course. Yes...you have the checklist complete for a victory. All the bases covered...seniors, veterans, minority and gender voters all have a ticket they can get behind. But would Condi Rice run? Maybe...maybe not. After definitive denials, she is now letting the door remain adjar in case the Republican party decides to make her an offer. http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/condoleezza_rice_vp/2008/03/27/83512.html Condoleezza Rice Would Consider VP Job
Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:50 PM By: Ronald Kessler Despite saying she wants to return to Stanford University, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has let it be known in Republican circles that she would consider running for vice president if asked. One source told Newsmax that she expressed interest in the possibility when Rudy Giuliani was running for president. Another source said she has more recently let her interest be known discreetly within top Republican circles, presumably including John McCain’s camp. Fueling speculation that she would consider being on the ticket, Rice appeared for the first time this week at the so-called Wednesday meeting run by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Rice spoke for 20 minutes at the off-the-record meeting of conservative leaders, then took questions for 20 minutes. Presidential candidates, White House aides, Cabinet officers, and members of Congress routinely speak to the group, but the talks generally are far shorter. In her talk, Rice stuck to foreign policy. When asked about her future, she said she plans to teach at Stanford, where she was once provost, and she plans to write a book. Asked for comment, an aide to Rice said it was “not true” that she has expressed interest in a run and pointed to what she said at the Wednesday meeting about intending to return to Stanford. “No one can accurately say she was encouraging it or that she expressed interest, as your two sources apparently told you,” the aide said. “That is wrong. Her answer [about being interested in running for vice president] was clearly and unambiguously negative.” In general, possible vice presidential candidates never want to appear to be running for the job. What Rice has done is make it clear she would not shut the door on a possible candidacy. “She would be a good vice presidential candidate because she would be a good president,” Norquist commented to Newsmax. Vice-presidential candidates are usually selected, not only by their qualifications, but also by "what they can bring to the fight" in a general election. In Rice's case, she has the potential as a highly-educated, internationally-respected black woman, to completely deflate either Democrat candidate's strengths.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-27 21:05
Rice for VP
Wouldn't that throw a sack of sand in the Democratic Party's engine block? Slipping Away
What looked like a sure thing for the Democrats in'08 is looking like a lost cause. If Hillary gets the nomination, Black Democrats will cry foul and refuse to show up at the polls. If Obama gets it, HIllary's female fans will do likewise as well as those Democrats and Independents who feel Obama is simply not qualified. As for Obama's qualifications, campaigning about what you haven't done is not much of a recommendation for the White House. Another Black Republican
IM; You're forgetting about another great Black candidate for VP, Colin Powell. As a man with years in the military, the White House and foreign affairs, he is at least as strong a candidate as Rice, probably stronger. Hell, I'd vote for Colin if
Hell, I'd vote for Colin if he was the Presidential nominee. I'd vote for him over McCain. Check this out. It does
Check this out. It does not inspire much confidence...
http://rock103.com/pages/crew/pics/ 
Colin Powell is a worthy consideration
He certainly displayed a great deal of wisdom and foresight urging caution on the road to war. That would play well to Democrat defectors. His military credentials are impeccable. But I gotta admit, given the choice, I'm partial to Condi. I participated in a national level exercise awhile back with her in the SECDEF role on the Domestic Event Network (kind of a 24-hour nationwide conference call). It was a pretty challenging national threat scenario and I was impressed with her ability to remain cool and decisive in the face of an overwhelmingly complex civil and military response to a national attack. I also think she tends to be more conservative on social issues than Powell. Don't forget M and M
Karl Rove is suggesting McCain and Mit Romney, as I mentioned before (and I have a bottle of decent wine hanging on this with an American friend of mine). It makes sense because it gives a more balanced team with Romney's greater commercial awareness. I can't see two ex military people being a sensible choice, as much as Colin Powell would be a good vote winner. Condi would not be a great vote winner, even though she combines being female with being black. I think Obama will be the next president anyhow, despite the damage being done by the battle with the Clintons. The republicans could do worse than McCain though.
Not so sure...
I don't think Romney brings enough to the general election fight. He didn't rally the conservative faithful in the primary and is unlikely to do so as a VP candidate. He comes from a small state, so no big pot of electoral votes are likely--even with Utah combined. His Morman baggage will arise again as a contrast to Obama's pastor. On the other hand, he would be a great economic choice as a counterpoint to McCain's admitted inexperience, but he's a weak foreign policy and social conservative choice. Rice on the other hand is deeply religious and a minister's daughter. She can rally the values voters, despite her moderately pro-choice stance (which will actually work in her favor with moderates). She also consolidates the minority and gender voters. And frankly, I think she has a better intellect than ANY in the candidate pool on EITHER side of the election...especially in the area of foreign policy and national security. McCain and Rice?
What planet do you guys live on? What world do you inhabit? For quite some time now the American people have indicated they believe the Iraq War was a mistake, and not worth the price. Rice is clearly identified as one of the war's principle enablers, and McCain as one of its principle supporters. McCain's sole purchase on the matter of the public's sentiments about the war is his opposition to its handling. But it is undeniable that in 2004, when he had a clear chance to affect exactly the handling he was so critical of, McCain was hugged by Bush, hugged Bush back, and missed his moment. One can only think of all those Senators who voted for the war in 2002, and how it came back to haunt them. Hey John, Boo! You guys really think you will not see this again? What universe do you live in? Oh Yes! That stubborn 30 - 40 per cent or so that defines the dedicated Bushies I have just posted about in 'The Numbers'. So hang in there, contemplating your navels, and chortling to yourselves.
Better to have some convictions than none!
You mean like Teddy kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and most of the democrats in office at the time? Fortunately for you Ron, your hero Obama opposed the war from the start...of course that's one of the few positions he DID support since the majority of his votes were not even cast. He abstained on the majority of his votes in the senate by voting "present." Yes. Now THERE's an politician with conviction! Always better to avoid taking a stand on the issues to reserve your position on both sides of the fence. How disappointing for the candidate of change! ;-)
Fortunately or Wisely?
Iron Mike,
You mean like Teddy kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton . . . ?
Yep!
. . . and most of the democrats in office at the time?
It is my understanding that 23 Senate votes were cast against the 2002 war resolution, 21 (of 29) Democrats, one by a Republican, Chaffe of Rhode Island, and one by the Independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont. By Democrats 'in office', this should be limted to the Senate and House of the U.S. Congress who actually voted on the resolution. I will leave it to you to so document your assertion, but P-L-E-A-S-E DO. My prediction!: If the evidence supports you, you will, If not you will just duck (with a little shuck). As for Obama's 'good fortune', good fortune or WISDOM?
Ron gets half a bone
It is my understanding that 23 Senate votes were cast against the 2002 war resolution, 21 (of 29) Democrats...
Your understanding is flawed and your statistics for the senate are skewed. It was NOT 21 of 29 voted against the 2002 war resolution. The majority of senate democrats (29) voted Aye, with (21) Nay votes. I expect a full and humble apology from you! ;-)
PartyAyesNaysNo Vote Republican Democratic Independent TOTALS Now I'll throw you half a bone because you are correct in the House. Democrats voted 81 (Aye) to 126 (Nay) on the resolution. So I'll withdraw my demand for a full and humble apology and settle for a grudging acknowledment.
Ron's duck and shuck
You mean like your convenient "duck and shuck" of Obama's voting record? No comment on his courageous "Present" vote? After all, what does it say about his most frequent vote? Seem to infer more indecision or fence sitting than conviction or wisdom. Actually, More than half!
Iron Mike, I DID missput the matter - as it should have been obvious - (I had the correct numbers[I DID check, unlike . . . .], but should have entered "It is my understanding that 23 Senate votes were cast against the 2002 war resolution, 21 by Democrats (as opposed to 29 in favor) . . ." As to apologies, I will apoligize for my prediction that you would duck the reality (which, of course I HAD checked out) as to YOUR original assertion.
. . . . . . and most of the democrats in office at the time?
House and Senate YOU were flat out wrong! As to the Obama's voting record, given the consistently skewed views of 'evidence' I have seen from you, I am not inclined to waste my time. Ron,
Quote: "What planet do you guys live on? What world do you inhabit? For quite some time now the American people have indicated they Ron, I live in the United States, on the planet earth. Where do you live? You are making exactly the same mistake that the entire Democratic Party is making. You assume that anger for Bush's mistakes automatically insures their victory in the next election. They are so confident of that fact, they will put forward one of two candidates who are not electable in any national race. All the Democrats had to do was find a moderate, middle aged, white, male, senator or governor, without a negative past history, and they could have beaten anyone the Republicans nominated. But, noooo... Instead, they picked the most hated woman in America, and a young, inexperienced, black Marxist. Neither Democratic choice stands a chance. You think the only issue to be considered in casting a vote next November will be Iraq. And, not just the nominees past regarding Iraq, but the "stain of Bush spilling onto anyone affiliated with the same national Party as Bush," meanwhile bathing and opposition Democratic nominee in the glorious light of righteousness, simply because they belong to a different party. You are wrong. As is the entire Democratic Party. The assumption will cost them, and you, the election.
Chill out Ron.
Ron,
I DID missput the matter - as it should have been obvious
It WAS obvious...after I corrected your data. It's not like you reversed the Aye and Nay votes. You stated there were 21 Nay votes of 29 (cast). You were wrong. That's okay---I forgive you. You're only human. I was correct about the senate and you were correct about the house. Perhaps I should have been more specific in referring to the Senate in my original statement, and you should have been more precise in your posting of Senate numbers. Not sure why this seems to upset you unless you are so personally invested in Saint Obama, the Democrat Messiah.
I have to agree with Alan. (Hence my comment in "Numbers" that you are fighting the LAST war). Obama is trying to paint McCain as Bush Term III and like him, you are trying to paint that stigma on anyone who ever agreed with Bush. That's red meat for the rabid, Moveon.org and Salon Democrats, but not likely to resonate with moderates as the February poll numbers I posted clearly show. The American people don't like this war, but they trust McCain to get us out...by winning! Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. Even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain - a Vietnam veteran who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy - was better able to deal with Iraq. http://tiny.cc/GvuBT
Feel free to press on! President McCain and Vice-President Rice will thank you.
'Upsets' and Surprises
Iron Mike,
Not sure why this seems to upset you . .
You had made a catagorical statement about most Democrats and it was wrong. Care to tell us why you continue to evade this (and NOT for the first time either):
McCain's sole purchase on the matter of the public's sentiments about the war is his opposition to its handling. But it is undeniable that in 2004, when he had a clear chance to affect exactly the handling he was so critical of, McCain was hugged by Bush, hugged Bush back, and missed his moment.
Will you be surprised if this comes to haunt McCain in the general?
"Missputs" and surprises
Care to tell us why you continue to evade this (and NOT for the first time either)
Gee Ron, I thought I already clarified that. Perhaps I need to phrase it better..."I DID missput the matter - as it should have been obvious." Questions? :-)
Will you be surprised if this comes to haunt McCain in the general?
Nope. But I think its also understandable. He voiced his opposition, but once the commander in chief made a decision, he supported him in the best interest of the country. I think people will remember that he was critical of the numbers of troops employed and was a supporter of the surge...which has been largely successful. THAT's what they'll remember. Who knows...maybe it will come back to haunt you? Post new comment |
|
50.50Podcast: Women and Memory, a report from Egypt In the blog: Positive Anger, Zainab Magdy Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 977
Joined: 2004-10-07