Posted on 03/01/2005 12:11:49 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Since moving from the White House to the State Department, Condoleezza Rice's star appears to be rising faster than any Washington politico, including President Bush and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Only the ailing Pope John Paul - with a whopping 78% favorability rating - got higher marks than the secretary of state in a new Gallup poll released yesterday.
"There's been less controversy lately than last year when Condi was testifying in Congress, and now she's in a much more prominent position," said Marist College pollster Lee Miringoff. "As secretary of state you add legitimacy to your power."
Rice, who already is being urged to run for President in 2008 by some, has a 59% favorability rating in the poll, while only 27% of respondents gave her an unfavorable score.
"When she was national security advisor, she looked like a staffer. Now she looks like someone running an important department," Miringoff added.
Bush trailed Rice with a 56% favorability rating, followed by Clinton, who's considered the Democratic presidential front-runner in four years, at 53%.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean lagged far behind the pack at 35%, and his numbers suggested he needs to raise his profile a bit. Some 14% of people polled said they had never heard of Dean, while another 18% had no opinion of him.
Some are so consumed with beating Hillary that they are throwing principle out the window for a shot at a minority block or a random blue state.
I think one can draw a straight line from Reagan's position on killing Communism by exporting freedom to what Bush is doing in the Middle East. Other than that, his first four years have been a disaster in terms of spending policies and the role of gov't in the welfare of the average citizen.
The tax cuts were just the first step, and a good one. But to follow on with more wasteful education spending and expansion of an already failing Medicare program (just to name a few) completely offset any benefits.
Now you have this Condi Kool-aid drive - a person who has never legislated in any public office and does not hold the party principle of life or US sovereignty - kicking in because some hope she'll grab a few % points in black community and offset Hillary simply because she a woman.
Pushing the ideals of Bush does not make her a great leader. She has not carved out a foreign policy that has enabled Lebanon to revolt against Syria or Egypt to push for broad elections - Bush did that. She's doing what Powell didn't, go to the world and tell them what Bush wants to tell them.
Politics above Principle. One party has already done that. Hopefully Bush will reverse course and we'll get back to the ideals that Reagan put in place and put forth a candidate that believes and promotes those same ideals.
You are preaching to the choir here - like I said, I strongly, wholeheartedly favor Dr. Rice. I think she could and should run the whole shebang at some point. I simply think '08 is premature. FWIW - I do not remember how old Golda Meier was when she lead Israel, but she did a great job - as did Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain.
To others - I do not care how excited some candidates make people - I care that they have principles, values, and rock-steady character. For that matter, Dr Rice is not a glittering orator, nor a riveting, absolutely commanding presence - yet - on the ploitical stage. She has proven she can hold her own gracefully under fire from extremist left wing whining twits like Baa-Baaa "she attacked me, boo-hoo" Boxer, but I want to see Dr Rice whip a state into good or better shape, and I firmly believe she can do it.
If she does not have such credentials before running, you can be sure whomever the demonRat obstructionists du jour are, they will seek to focus upon that as a deficiency, and attack her brutally, incessantly, mercilessly, and without an ounce of gentlemanly demeanor. They will attempt to politically "rape" her - because that IS how unprincipled and desperate they are to take and hold power!
We absolutely have to bring our "A+" game, because they will do everything they can in the next four years to consolidate power over the voting process in states where they control elected officials and bureaucracies. Read: FRAUD - massive voting fraud. Blatant, unabashed, unadulterated, undisguised, catch-us-if-you-dare fraud. They are enraged, and want power that badly, let's not kid ourselves. Our candidates need to be defined early, and in the national spotlight often, continually reaffirming their stances before the voters.
We already know the dems and their MSM co-conspirators will twist everything said, every position taken, every point of vulnerability (real or imagined) will be exploited. I mean - the Left wing Moonbat base of "Deanie Babies" that the dems now call home believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, had a hand in planning it (along with the eeeeeevvvillll Joooooooos!), and has similarly nefarious plans to exterminate the poor with high altitude "chemtrails", Bin Laden lives in the White House basement, Karl Rove directs all of OBL's taped diatribes for CIA distribution to Al JizzyRah nutwork (sp. deliberate)- there is really not a reasonable limit to their lunatic conspiracy theory rantings.
They do not feel themsellves at all constrained by the rationality guidelines of "Occam's razor" (aka the principle of parsimony), and any means will justify their ends. Dr. Rice is still an election cycle away from dealing with that as a candidate for President. I prefer her serving as a state guv first. If the party really needs her sooner, let it be as a VP running mate then.
I believe the public would go for that on a broad scale (how about carrying 50%+ of the woman's vote nationwide,75% of the woman's vote in the South, 80% or better among ladies of color (did I say that in a 'PC' enough way?)
I hope you don't think I'm on the Condi hayride.
She was a good NSA. She may be a good SoS. After Bush's term is up, she can go back to the private sector.
These new poll numbers have got to sting for Babs Boxer. LOL!
Yea! Remember how everyone wanted Collin Powell for Presidet, until his true colors started to come out?
Even if he did run, he can't win in `08. Too many half-baked people who only pay attention in the last two weeks of the election will vote anyone but Bush on the theory that "it's someone else's turn!"
It's the same lame mentality that foisted Dole on us in `96. Because it was his turn damnit!
I prefer Jeb in `12 or `16 (that's they way W did it).
IT STILL IS - remember that whole "big tent" thing?
Read the credo on the home page.
I not against independent thought, just against putting up a candidate who doesn't reflect the ideals of Reagan.
Maggie Thatcher was a great leader, but she was not the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, and all she had to do was echo Reagan.
IMHO George Bush is just as great or greater president as Ronald Reagan.
Jeb Bush is more than qualified for the position. He's pro business, pro education and anti tax. I believe certain elements are expounding on this "dynasty" rhetoric for the express purpose of interfering with the '08 elections. Fortunately for him and his family, I believe he's serious about not running. They don't need the grief from paranoids who'd rather have anyone but another Bush in the WH, ever. Equating him with Fat Teddy is dispicable.
For me, I'd like to see him run. If not in '08 then in '12. I'm not stupid enough to damn a man for name recognition.
I'm not sure how to respond to that one so I'll say I respect your opinion.
I get your point, but a lot of the old timers here are seriously libertarian, and this board used to be much more libertarian than conservative. Some of the old Buchanan brigade would scorch the paint off the monitor. I'm also a huge Reagan fan, btw. After "He Who Must Not Be Named" left office, a lot of the unity fell apart, and you started seeing more ideological splits. Before, most of the splits were covered up by the fact that there was a common dislike of Clinton.
Hard to believe, but I'm already sick and tired of the '08 Presidential campaign.
I hope whomever is president after Bush keeps her on. Her brillaince, organized mind, diplomatic talents and experience are invaluable to this country. Barring that, maybe she'll run for office. Diplomats make the best politicians.
Point taken - two big Reagan mistakes. The Beruit killings and appointing Sandr Day O'Connor. Both he acknowledged.
But in no way can you place Bush ahead of Reagan. Bush does not exist as he does without Reagan.
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.