Getting a "tune up," no doubt.
Posted on 01/17/2006 7:26:57 AM PST by SirLinksalot
January 17, 2006
Condi Says She’s Not Running. Believe It.
By Jay Cost
Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that Condoleeza Rice once again said that she is not seeking the presidency. Of course, the fact that she has to consistently deny that she is seeking the presidency indicates that people do not really believe her denials. Perhaps it is because they do not want to believe them. Rice always polls very well among Republican primary voters. And many think that she would be a safe bet in 2008. She is likeable, qualified and capable of securing African-American voters (so the conventional wisdom goes). But Condi keeps saying no, she will not run.
The question: should people believe her?
The answer: definitely. Condoleeza Rice will not seek the presidency in 2008. The reason for this is that the position of Secretary of State is no longer one from which the presidency can reasonably be sought. The fact that Rice took that job – and obviously has no intention of leaving it – indicates that she has no interest in the presidency.
A long time ago, State was almost a prerequisite for the White House. Six of our first fifteen presidents – Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan – served as Secretary of State prior to election to the White House. What is more, there is a long list of presidential candidates who served in the same capacity, either before or (mostly) after their White House run – notably Henry Clay, John Calhoun, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes and Alexander Haig. That office remains one of the preeminent political positions in this country. Of this there is no doubt.
However, it has not been a step to the presidency in 150 years. Zero of our last twenty-seven presidents have been Secretary of State. And the number of secretaries-turned-candidates has also been few and far between. Since Buchanan, only one person, James G. Blaine, has received a presidential nomination after having served as Secretary of State. The rest, like Bryan and Hughes, sought the presidency and lost – and were subsequently honored by a victorious president of their party with the post. This seems counterintuitive. After all, this position has very frequently been filled by individuals of immense talent and intelligence. Why has the American public not made use of this resource? The answer has to do with matters of politics, rather than matters of governance.
First, the number of prominent political positions, i.e. those from which an ambitious politician could stage a presidential campaign, have increased dramatically since the early days of the Republic. Governorships are now much more prominent on a national level. So, also, are seats in the Senate. These positions offer one a better opportunity for the kind of political posturing necessary to secure a major party nomination. Secretaries of State, on the other hand, must always be measured and reserved in their remarks. They are, after all, the nation’s chief diplomats.
Second, it is no coincidence that only three secretaries of State – Van Buren, Buchanan and Blaine – have received a presidential nomination since it was no longer in the hands of a party’s congressional caucus. Between roughly 1828 and 1960, party nominees were chosen largely by state party bosses at nominating conventions. It was unlikely that state bosses were thinking about the nation’s top diplomat when considering whom to nominate. Congressional caucuses, which nominated candidates in the early years of the Republic and which were much more connected to the happenings of the federal government, were more impressed by secretaries of State.
The rise of the political primary as a replacement for the boss-controlled nominating convention has not changed the secretary’s position vis-à-vis the presidency, either. In fact, it has worsened it. The top job at State is, to say the least, a labor-intensive one. The Secretary is required to put in much more time than, say, a governor or a senator, who can safely dedicate lots of time to campaigning. But the Secretary of State is always and exclusively at the service of the President. There is no time for glad-handing at a cookout in Iowa or fishing with the chair of the Manchester, NH Republican Party. There is also no time for the fundraising. Major party presidential nominees are no longer chosen by congressional caucus or by party bosses at a convention. They are now chosen by the people, who require long and expensive campaigns that begin months-to-years prior to the actual date of voting. No Secretary of State has time for that kind of commitment. This is probably why the post has most recently been held by individuals who seem to be at the end of their political careers: Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, George Schultz, etc.
So, while this job used to be one from which candidates would emerge, it is now no longer so. This is important for understanding Condoleeza Rice. If she wanted to be President in 2009, she would not be at State today. She would have secured for herself some other position of political prominence. State is perhaps the only position that is both maximally prominent and minimally effective for attaining the presidency. Why would she be there if she was interested in the White House?
If she is not interested in the presidency, she will not be running for the presidency. People who run for the White House have wanted to be President for a very long time. Nobody is drafted for that position, not anymore and not in the true sense of the word “draft”. Putting aside all the campaign rhetoric about duty or experience to justify candidacies, the bottom line is that people who actually run are people who are hungry for the office and who have worked for a long time to place themselves in a position from which they could attain it. Condi is clearly not such a person.
It is interesting to note, by way of conclusion, that Rice responded to the question about the 2008 race while she was literally on her way out the door to Africa. That should tell you all you need to know. Compare Rice to the other 2008 candidates – McCain, Romney, Allen, Clinton, etc. The latter are today thinking about and preparing for their campaigns. Condoleeza Rice is today thinking about US-Liberian relations. What else do you need to know? Condi will not run in 2008.
Jay Cost, creator of the Horse Race Blog, is a doctoral candidate of political science at the University of Chicago
Ladies have said that about me, right after "charming" and "intelligent".
How were Clinton and Carter years were better than the Reagan and Bush years? Had we elected a Democrat during the Reagan era we would still fighting the cold war, unions would be everywhere, Saddam would be running Saudi Saddami Arabia, the dotcom bust would have become a depression, everyone would be driving Yugos, and my dog would have fleas.
Cars?
Just trying to confuse you, bub. It's called distraction.
Actually, it's called "looking stupid."
Sounds to me like you're jealous you can't keep up intellectually with a favorite freeper.
LOL!
But you do support "Southern Nationalism", so something had to appeal to you.
It sounds like a 12 year old got ahold of mommy's computer while she's out.
Butner...excellent...
Actually, I was up there one weekend and saw a caravan bring in John Gotti, though I never saw the Don himself.
Later on, they moved him to...where was it...Marion, I think. Now, he's enjoying breakfast in hell with Stalin.
By the way, I recently returned from Elizabeth City, NC and I didn't met a single insane person there.
Getting a "tune up," no doubt.
I wrote too quickly. I'm sorry.
That should have read Democrat OR REPUBLICAN.
If one president would accomplish anything on the scale of bringing down the Evil Empire, my faith in the system would be reborn. I just don't see anything more than slow rot out into the future.
No, it's not optimistic at all.
And you didn't even call? Hiissssss.
I'm think this guy is posting from Butner -- probably from the cell next to Jonathan Pollard.
I never ever will get sitting out an election in protest.
You will get more than your protesting... and that harms our children and grandchildren.
Which are speaking of, ma'am. (Or, if you prefer, of which are you speaking?)
I'm not here for intellectual stimulation. Entertainment and light conversation, yes. I get intellectual stimulation all friggin' day, and sometimes I just want to be cheerfully insulting like all the other guys.
LOL!
As evidenced by your nonsense.
Southern Nationalism has nothing to do with the Klan. It has everything to do with national identity, and that applies to white AND black southerners.
If you want to find out about the topic, go to dixienet.org, and read the home page of the League of the South. It's a single page summary of what we believe in.
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.