Replies

Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular should not be looking to vote for someone who's smarter or speaks better then Hillary or who doesn't have a questionable past.

Condi has no meaningful public record, no legislative experience at all, she's a globalist at heart and she's all over the map on abortion.

She was a good NSA and maybe a better SoS. But as far as leading the most powerful nation on the planet, parroting Bush's policies (something Powell refused to do) or serving as provost does not mean she's presidential material.

If defeating Hillary with some pipe dream that she'll cut into the black vote and steal some women is your only reason to promote her, then be prepared for president Clinton II.

Eternal Vigilance suggests:
“You obviously have little understanding of the GOP nominating process. Pro-lifers dominate it.”

I reply with respect, my friend, I have a relatively informed understanding of the process. With the GOP, ( as well as Dems), after a two (2) term presidency, the incumbent vice president is considered the titular head of the party, and invariably receives the nomination for the succeding presidential election. In this case, it does not appear that VP Cheney will run. By default, Dr. Rice would be the prospective nominee from the prior administration, if as I mentioned in a post above, GWB wants her to be.

I am pro-life. But that issue is not going to disturb the long standing empirical fact of presidential succession outlined above.

Frankly however, Eternal, it seems that you are just anti-Rice- which is your right. You may favor another nominee. That's fine. But, your opinions might have more resonance if they demonstrated a more extensive analysis of the process, as opposed to merely the abortion issue, which is not yet set in stone as to Condi.

Can we presume that if Condi came straight out and said "I am pro-life and will actively seek to overturn Roe", that you would vote for her?

Reagan Disciple writes:
“Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular should not be looking to vote for someone who's smarter or speaks better then Hillary or who doesn't have a questionable past. “

I respectfully ask, Why not? If Hillary’s the nominee.

Disciple continues:
“Condi has no meaningful public record, no legislative experience at all.”

I respectfully reply, neither did most of our original Presidents, nor Grant, Jackson, or Ike-

Condi has eight (8) years of experience within the innermost circles of the Executive Branch- which would seem to be a far more valued prerequisite to an Executive nomination than running a State or being party to the "legislative" deals we have just witnessed in our corrupt Senate.

In my view, Condi's lack of association with the Legislature is to her advantage, as against those who come to the presidential primaries with extensive legislative records to defend.