Posted on 02/17/2006 6:34:15 AM PST by Valin
Consider:
Early 2007. The 2006 mid-terms are over. Republicans lost half a dozen seats in the House, but picked up two Sentate seats. Much grousing about the still-born emerging Republican majority. Suddenly, but in reality not unexpected, Dick Cheney announces that he is resigning as Vice President for health/personal reasons (ie. unable to cope with shooting his friend). Bush nominates who as the new VP? Only one name comes to mind: Condi. You know GW would do that in a heartbeat. Talk about historic. Talk about legacy. Instantly the political equations for 2008 are tossed out the window. A Condi Presidency then becomes a very real possiblity. Just one of the ways that I see her becoming #44.
I just don't think that the US is quite ready for a black, female president.
Yes, it would be better to elect someone that craves power.
That's not what I said, meant or implied.
I think one obstacle is her teacher-like aloof, formal bearing. but, I also think that no Republican is running yet, because they have things they want to get done now, Garing up the 08 election is sure to make Bush a lame duck and slow progress on controversial measures.
Just goes to show how stuff gets all mixed up in these forums.
Sadly, the probability of a disrespectful whispering campaign about Rice's sexual orientation during the primaries -- in an attempt to rob from her early pivotal contests such as South Carolina -- must be taken into consideration by anyone serious about a Rice candidacy.
Just as with Schwarzenegger's storied sexual indiscretion, such rumor-mongering would serve only to bolster the vote among the blue-staters...
"This also ties to the third group Rice appeals to, the 'Emerging Majority' Republicans and the pragmatically-oriented apparatchiks and wonks in conservative think-tanks throughout the country. This wing may value Rice's moderation (and competence) not only for its own sake, but also for its political potential. After all, if the GOP succeeded in locking in a two-term candidate in 2008, it will have ruled with only one interruption (Clinton) for 36 years from 1980 to 2016. This would give the GOP the status of a default choice for government in a way that would force the Democrats to move rightwards in order to remain in contention. In the long run, there is no better prospect for the conservative movement."
I don't buy this. Reagan won his presidencies in part by attracting Democrat voters, not simply the "moderates" from the middle. Blue collar workers were concerned about their jobs, given the economic problems going on at the time (stagflation, etc). That concern didn't change, just which ideology they were more confident in bringing it about.
What the author is suggesting is to change the ideology. How will that attract voters across party lines in the future? It won't. Hewing leftward will only enable the Democrats to lurch futher left themselves.
Without the Reagan and first Bush presidencies, would there have been the DLC? Whatever else the problems with Clinton, he was no McGovern or Jimmy Carter.
Appealing to moderates is a bad idea, and the big brains who suggest these kinds of things should learn from recent history a little better.
What's assumed in this political calculus is that conservative voters will stick around and keep voting these big government Republican types. They won't!
Why would anybody want Condoleeza Rice in the Oval Office? She's simply not Presidential material. Is this just another case of new-age man bowing and scraping to women? I don't get it.
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.