Posted on 03/12/2005 4:43:56 PM PST by MadIvan
WASHINGTON is suddenly agog at the prospect of President Condi. A flurry of speculation about the political ambitions of Condoleezza Rice was ignited yesterday when the US secretary of state took a first step towards wooing conservative Republican voters.
Asked in a newspaper interview to comment on widespread speculation that she might stand as the Republican candidate for the White House in 2008, Rice not only declined to rule out a run; she went on to discuss an unusual subject for a secretary of state — the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Rice was careful to avoid any suggestion that she is actively planning a campaign. But Washington pundits seized on her unexpectedly ambivalent responses as evidence that a dream contest is materialising for 2008: Rice v Hillary Clinton, an all-woman battle for the most powerful job in the world.
When the subject was first broached by the Washington Times reporter, Rice replied with a brush-off. “I never wanted to run for anything,” she said. “I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It’s really hard for me to imagine myself in that role.”
She was pressed on whether she was prepared to repeat the famous denial of General William T Sherman, who said in 1884: “If nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”
Rice replied with a chuckle: “That’s not fair . . . I really can’t imagine it.”
Had she stopped there, many in Washington might not have paid too much attention. But even though President George W Bush has barely begun his second term, Republicans are painfully aware that he has no obvious successor.
The race has begun for various senators and governors who are already nosing around New Hampshire — the scene of early voting — in the hope of staking a claim to Bush’s majority. The first thing they must do to impress conservative voters is establish their views on abortion.
In a striking departure from her preoccupations with the Middle East and Iran, Rice talked about how she approaches an “extremely difficult moral issue” as “a deeply religious person”.
Rice admitted to being “mildly pro-choice” (in favour of a woman’s right to choose) — a position that for some right-wing voters will disqualify her immediately. But she emphasised that abortion should be “as rare a circumstance as possible”. She also argued that the government should not pay for abortions “because I believe those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it”.
Rice insisted that her remarks should not be misinterpreted: “I’m not trying to be elected.” But they are certain to be seized on by an army of admirers who have established websites seeking a Rice candidacy in 2008. “Our lady’s got the buzz,” proclaimed the weblog CondiPundit.
Washington analysts have long been divided over Rice’s chances. Some Republicans argue that she should first return to California and challenge a Democratic senator to gain campaign experience. She had a chance to run for governor two years ago, but yielded to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Her supporters see her as an American Margaret Thatcher, ready to confound convention and become America’s first woman president. Dick Morris, the former Bill Clinton aide who has become an outspoken critic of Hillary Clinton, recently argued that Rice had become a “Republican rock star . . . her every movement covered by an adoring media”.
Rice took Europe by storm on her recent tour. If she pulls off a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, Morris argued, a Rice candidacy could destroy the Democratic party’s electoral chances.
Harder-nosed analysts suggest that her political inexperience is too big a drawback, especially when pitted against the masterful manoeuvring of the Clintons.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Centre for Politics, said that the two women were in different leagues. Compared with the Clinton steamroller, the Rice candidacy was “cotton candy fluff”, he said.
Yet Rice has one card up her sleeve. She is a close friend of the president, whose endorsement could prove decisive. Bush recently joked that “if I catch her thinking that way (about becoming president), I’m going to remind her that I picked her to be secretary of state”. If she does well he may need to promote her.
All of this 2008 talk is an attempt to "lame duck" GWB ASAP.
That said, Condi is single, pro-choice, and has no experience as an executive or as a candidate for office. I like her security policies as much as the next FReeper, but what little I have seen of her speaking I am underwhelmed.
I intend to pooh-pooh all 2008 talk until December 2006, and by then I hope to see several experienced, polished, married, CONSERVATIVES vying for the nomination. Then let's have a robust, yet dignified primary concerning THE ISSUES and nominate a strong candidate who will cut taxes, defend and promote freedom (including the freedom to keep and bear arms), and will uphold the sanctity of ALL life!
Oh yeah, AND WIN, BABY!!!!!
You know, I admire and respect Dr. Rice...but she's been on the job THREE MONTHS! Let the woman prove herself to us, already!
More proof that America has the attention span of a gnat. And that is NOT a Good Thing, Martha! ;)
Those amongst us with actual, working BRAINS have a wonderful, goal-oriented, kick-butt and take no prisoners sitting PRESIDENT, and we act as if he's already yesterday's fish wrap. Aarrgghh!
Uhm, "mildly pro choice"? That answer alone shows how she is in no way ready to run for prez. A person never elected to anything..ever..will get crushed. The ONLY way she has a prayer of winning is if she hugs W on virtually every issue....all the "mildly pro choice" angle does is make a certain percentage of people stay home and elect Hillary or EB.
The insidious Democrat and RINO media campaign for a Republican nomination of Rice, McCain, Giuliani and others like them is nothing more or less than an attempt to drive away the majority Republican voter base. It's an effort for nothing but surely putting Hillary Clinton in office as our next president.
It's the most anti-conservative, anti-American media move possible for now. And all who hate America the most are frothing at their fascist lips to see Hillary as the next US President. It's the trash-America dream of every anti-American person on this planet.
No, thanks. We will elect even more of a great, "neo-conservative" "warmongering cowboy" as our next president. And to heck with anyone who desires otherwise, IMO.
If McCain doesn't get on the ticket in 2008, I doubt there is any chance he'll ever run again. He was born in 1936 so he would be 72 in 2008. Bob Dole was 73 when he ran in 1996. Ronald Reagan was 73 when he ran for his second term in 1984. If elected in 2008, McCain would be the oldest candidate ever elected president for a first term. If he had to wait till 2012 to get the Republican nomination, he would be the oldest presidential candidate in US History. Pretty unlikely.
Agree completely. But that's why the MSM is pushing Condoleezza Rice in 2008. It is the only way for Hillary to get elected. If the GOP stands on firm conservative principles and nominates the right person to champion them (as they did with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) then there is no way for Hillary ever to be President. So the MSM wants the GOP to nominate an inexperienced candidate with views that will alienate their own base, Condoleezza Rice.
Rice is a good diplomat. But the more leftist pushing we see to elect her or another libertine conservative (oxymoronic phrase) to be our president, the more likely we will be to elect one of our Republican generals to spite all who hate our country.
There is separation of church and state somewhere. I'm not sure where, but somewhere. And the church is not a political party in America. Citizens of America are proud to vote in elections even if they make the wrong choice. The pride stems from the voting itself. It is difficult enough to get to the polls from work, and amazing to think that religious people have the luxury to boycott voting.
Doesn't matter. I can think of no Republican I would even think of voting for other than Condi.
"The "purist" can stuff it -- their brand of conservatism is annoying! The my way or no way is a little hard to take most of the time!"
Thank you, PKM! I can understand the frustration to a point. I, myself, once claimed I wouldn't vote for Sen. Specter. On election day, however, I held my nose and voted for the "least worst" candidate!
I have no idea how you drew that out of anything I said.
I cannot bring myself to vote for a Democrat so more than once I have held my nose and voted -- at least I feel I can gripe when I don't like something because I voted! :)
bump
Mildly pro-choice won't cut it with me, unless she explains that she means the "choice" is ONLY in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
That is actually a "mildly pro-life" position.
We've already had a huge Condi thread, but I'm afraid I feel obliged to say again that her announcing in the context of running for the presidency that she is "moderately pro-choice" simply disqualifies her. Period.
It's not my opinion. Running someone who favors abortions would turn off millions of Evangelical, Catholic, Hispanic, and working-class voters who came out for Bush in the last two elections, and also turn off many of the most energetic volunteers. Unless she does a quick repair job, she has just sunk her candidacy.
"Running someone who favors abortions would turn off millions of Evangelical, Catholic, Hispanic, and working-class voters who came out for Bush in the last two elections, and also turn off many of the most energetic volunteers."
They're not going to vote Dem, and 89% won't stay home. Those that do will be offset by the surge of moderate black and women voters thrilled to finally have a winner on the presidential ticket
89% ? How'd I get that number? Actually, I meant to type 80.
So did the Clinton's, "safe rare an legal."
Exactly.
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.