OR 
Posted on 03/16/2005 7:47:37 PM PST by CHARLITE
| Jose Canseco has a better chance of sitting in the Oval Office four years from now than Condoleezza Rice. A considerable number of Republican earlybirds, fretting about who'll run for president in 2008—and forget the absurd talk that Sen. Bill Frist, a wobbly Majority Leader at best, and about as exciting as a Three Dog Night reunion, is the putative front-runner—are talking up the Secretary of State, hawking Condi t-shirts and posters on the Internet. She ranks high in the polls for possible contenders, just as two other non-starters, Rudy Giuliani (way too socially liberal) and John McCain (too old, cranky and contradictory) do, all because of name recognition.
Such speculation, which will continue despite Rice's protests, is useful for Democrats since it crowds out space for the most likely, at this point, contenders for the GOP nomination, elected officials like Sen. George Allen, Gov. Mark Sanford and, with the expected candidacy of Hillary Clinton, which nullifies the "dynasty" obstacle, Gov. Jeb Bush.
Realistically, Rice has five problems that her supporters refuse to recognize, any combination of which would, when people actually vote, erode the Republican electoral domination of the South and any other red state that has a sizable number of social conservatives. In no particular order: she's black, a female, single, ambiguous about abortion and has never run for office.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
It would be smart for us Republicans not to nominate a pro-abortion candidate for 2008.
If the Democrats put up a conservative pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate (which is highly unlikely) and the Republicans had a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani, I would have to vote for the Democrat.
I love the Republican Party but the Bible comes first.
"It would be smart for us Republicans not to nominate a pro-abortion candidate for 2008."
Are you sure this is what you wanted to state?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden031605.asp
Excerpt:
"She knows all the ways to say no in this town, to deny emphatically without absolutely, positively, cross-my-heart and hope-to-die denying. The exercise is, of course, arcane to the point of silliness anywhere but Washington. Condi Rice or anyone else is perfectly entitled to make up her mind now and change it later.
The prospect of a Condi-Hillary race is too delicious for pundits and political correspondents to resist writing endlessly about it, although wise heads know that both parties nominating the first woman for president in the very same year is about as likely as the Redskins making the World Series the same year the Nationals win the Super Bowl.
Handicapping a presidential race four years on couldn't start an argument in a bar anywhere outside the Beltway. But it's healthy exercise and harmless fun. Besides, Condi Rice is still in the race."
CORRECTION: I meant pro-life. My bad!
I don't understand the mentality of some people, Condi said politics is not her goal she would rather be NFL commissioner, and that was over a year ago. Talking about a race 4 years away is a lesson in futility.
Put aside her positions for a second, name a President who didn't hold prior elective office of some form ...
Condi is great but she is no U.S. Grant or Dwight Eisenhower ... as Wes Clark would say, she hasnt 'won a war'.
She's not even a Colin Powell, perhaps the only never-before-elected person who could make a credible run for President.
A well-known celebrity doesn't make Presidential material, nor does being a top Presidential advisor.
BTW, nor does being a general have particular merit (just ask Presidents Wes Clark, Curtis La May and George McLellan). Even VPs usually dont make it (Quayle, Mondale). Why would a Secty of State be considered viable?
Shall we admit a hint of tokenism here? She's a great counterexample of GOP stereotypes, so many in the GOP salivate at the change to get somebody to prove something about inclusiveness. ... but I'd rather show our true meritorious behavior by looking at the key capabilities inherent in electability, and the FIRST IS TO PROVE ELECTABILITY BY HAVING BEEN ELECTED BEFORE.
GOP faithful have wasted enough breath on vanity candidates like Keyes, Bauer, Forbes and Buchanan, let's not waste it on another. WE NEED TO TAKE 2008 MORE SERIOUSLY THAN THAT OR WE WILL SEE ANOTHER 8 YEARS OF ANOTHER CLINTON.
Pick our best Governor (Bill Owens) or Senator (George Allen) and go with that.
And we need to gain more seats in 2006.
The article seems to meander a lot. First its thesis is that Rice can't win; then it switches to Hillary can't win. Pick one topic and stay with it, people!
I would put forth, on the Rice issue, that there's really only one vulnerability in a possible Rice candidacy: that she's never been elected to anything. She is highly qualified to run the office, (in my opinion) of high moral character, and would make a great president.
I do not think the fact that she is a woman, or that she is black would hurt her that much. I think if she ever decided to run, those two things would translate more positive than negative when you look at the overall balance of the country.
The comments on Hillary are appropriate. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist and governed as a leftist. Hillary shows all indications of doing the same. Then again, I suppose the opposite could be said of Bush -- ran as a centrist (especially when you consider some of the wacko views of both Gore and Kerry) but governs as a righty. So I guess it's a slippery slope on both sides, and your point of view dictates your preference.
Can Hillary win? Certainly. Are there formidable candidates out there? I sure hope so. Rice would be one of the top in my book. Another would be Lynn Cheney. She is comparable in her articulation and leadership skills. I would love to see her run, although she may not be as electable as Rice would be.
It's good for her to keep her intentions of running under wraps! Throwing her hat in the ring this early would only give the omWHORES fodder! Besides, she told her folks that SOMEDAY she would be in that house(White House)and I don't think she meant anything else but to be PREZ!! Sounds to me it's a promise she intends to keep! With God's help she will be our next President!!
OR
our party cannot go up against the first female/hispanic ticket in 2008 (Hillary/Richardson) with two unknown white guys.
"Pick our best Governor (Bill Owens) or Senator (George Allen) and go with that. "
you get it and i get it. now will the republican establishment get it? i sure hope so. the candidate cant be a member of congress and cant be pro-choice. we need to take this seriously and now. our candidate needs to get name recognition and the national spotlight on them sooner rather than later. we re staring down the barrel of 8 years of hillary unless we do something.
No one listened to Colin Powell either, I don't get it ? What part of no, do people not understand ?
Absolutely not. She's just a flip-flopping contradiction like Kerry.
If the Republican Party swung towards the left (God forbid!) then I would probably vote Constitution Party.
Only vote third party if the polling place is within walking distance. Waste of good gas.
66 in '06! That's the goal. That should be the focus! 66 in '06!
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.