DRAFT PENCE!
So, I gather that the "socially moderate" view on infanticide is that it's OK.
But what is the "socially moderate" view on race relations? And what is the "socially conservative" view purported to be?
Does anyone know her stance on issues like the environment, student loans, affordable housing, the middle class, taxes, abortion, the military, energy and social spending?
I doubt this will happen.
I have no problem if Condi wants to run (I will vote for her if she does). But how many times does she have to say NO before these people get it into their thick heads?
Condi Rice says she's not running. She has said it again and again. Why put energy into a false hope.
Besides, it would be hard as heck to consider Rice a conservative. She is not.
This isn't going to happen. Better to find a good, strong, conservative candidate with good personal appeal qualities.
We might be better off worrying about what happens in 2006 instead of what might be happening in 2008.
Maybe if Condi wants to get to power, she has to do it herself!!!
FYI...................PING
The GOP needs a governor,not a senator or a former Bush admin. member to run. Condi would be ok as a VP.
Who we really need is Ken Blackwell to run for president. Although, I understand that Ohioans are not keen on giving him up if he wins the race their for governor.
The notion of a Rice presidency is appealing to three different groups within the GOP....
First and foremost is the moderate wing of the party [who]...is a deeply religious person who is nonetheless not, politically speaking, guided by religion. And as such, she appeals to Republicans worried about the rise of Evangelicals evident during the Bush presidency.
Puleeeese...
The author's "first and foremost" appeal of Rice's being a "moderate" is akin the bragging that's she's a RINO. Her pro-choice postion is indicative, as well as her globalist philosophy.
NO THANKS.
"And as such, she appeals to Republicans worried about the rise of Evangelicals evident during the Bush presidency."
Without evangelical grassroots support, there is no Republican majority.
Biting the hand that feeds, indeed.
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.