Posted on 03/26/2008 4:25:16 PM PDT by pissant
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at a breakfast Wednesday of powerful economic conservatives in Washington, say The Huffington Post and The Washington Note. They speculate Rice is courting conservatives to position herself as a possible vice presidential pick of Sen. John McCain.
Rice attended one of the regular meetings held by Grover Norquist, a Washington lobbyist and head of Americans for Tax Reform, which pushes for tax relief. (That's the group that gave Mike Huckabee so much trouble earlier this year.)
According to writer Steve Clemons, who was told of the event:
At the semi-secret gatherings which Republican political hopefuls migrate to to get the blessing of not only Norquist but the diverse parts of the nation's conservative money and political machinery, Norquist gives everyone in the room 3 minutes to pitch their cause or issue. I have attended before, but if one wants to attend again -- no one may write or speak about the internal discussion or who attended.
Nevertheless, Rice apparently wowed the group, all the while maintaining that she had no interest in staying in politics. Her presence on the McCain ticket would be interesting. Not only would it make the administration's management of the Iraq war a front-burner issue for the duration of the campaign, but it could also blunt any advantage gained by a Clinton-Obama pairing in the history-making department.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
LOL. Well stated.
She would accept if asked, I’m pretty certain.
I agree. It would be an unbeatable ticket.
I meant triple threat in a different way.
I’ll write in Pat Paulson before I will vote for McCain/Rice...
Baloney.
She has made it more than crystal clear, on a huge number of occasions that she does not want to be President. She can’t be a credible VP and not at least face the possibility of being President.
Honestly, can these writers be any more stupid? Geez.
Given the horrible results in Latin America, she probably needs to find a job where she can do less damage.
He could, and knowing McLame, will probably do a lot worse.
horrible choice—too tied to the president—would preclude cross over dems from voting for mccain
You are right about her golden opportunity to do something, anything, to improve State. But, it was a Mad Maddie’s Club before Mad. State’s liberal world view is entrenched and enduring.
Then again, maybe, Bush wouldn’t let her clean house.
Maybe, she chose not to make waves.
But, overall, she has been a big disappointment as SOS, although still easy on the eyes compared to most politicos. But, I admit, that is not a sufficient quality, in itself, to be chosen VP. Plus, just a feeling, her constant demands on Israel do not seem to coincide with Mr. Bush’s gut approach. Then again, the Israelis are the only ones in the area who have anything to give up. Sure, we could politely ask the Arabs to quit blowing up so fast.
If McCain did choose Rice, it could help. I think the Republicans need to avoid two old white guys. Look at the sheer number of new voters who are registering Democrat. We need to inject some excitement into the ticket. Desperately. But choosing Rice would further ostracize conservatives. Rightfully so.
How about Elaine Chao? I do not know too much about her. But she would give us a triple bagger: female, Asian and McConnell.
Oh...singing, dance and playing the Piano?
We need to find the most Conservative governor with the fewest ties to GWB.
Someone here gets it!
this - the idea - is simply something the sources - not ms rice - are promoting
it fits there gender and racial politics
then again, if they got their wish, they’d turn on condi as neither sufficiently black or female, in her opinions, as they did during her nomination hearings
Maybe she had better aim. ;-)
Whatever statements she has made, whatever actions she has taken; she has done nothing without approval of the home office.
You know, the one that doesn't have any corners in it.
Otter's evaluations by these groups are fairly typical of conservative Republicans:
Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 11% by APHA, indicating an anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 10% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environmentalist votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 33% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-ACLU voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 67% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 71% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-labor union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 97% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 92% by the Christian Coalition, indicating a pro-life, anti-gay marriage voting record. (Dec 2003)
(source: http://www.issues2000.org/)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
