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
LOL!
Of coures there are no titles offered; we'd be able to find the truth about that...........LOL.
The War on Terror ended at the border of Afghanistan. We should have concentrated on killing Osama first--cut off the head of the snake. Saddam was an enemy of the Taliban and Osama, not their ally.”
warchild9 posted: 06/24/2005
I see you haven’t been paying attention. While you been telling us group thinking people at Freerepublic that we are not of your stature about every 5 posts, you just haven’t been paying attention.
It is time for you to stop talking and read up on Able Danger and Muhammad Atta. You can find a link to the threads on top of the main thread page. Even Newsweek this month is printing that Saddam helped Al Qaeda with the attack of 911.
Anyone who calls Clancy and Ambrose (who I think are the two most prolific authors of modern times) and purports to tell complete strangers they're more "worthy" than others should be lambasted.
Oh, you're a doper. In every sense of the word.
Even if we have to go to the UNC Printing Press website.
I meant to say in my previous post that "anyone who calls Clancy and Ambrose 'frauds'...." should be lambasted.
My dissertation originally was rejected because I included too much information based on oral histories--that sort of thing is frowned on in academia (and they control the granting of degrees). It's one reason it took me a lot longer to obtain my PhD (others include my wife's failed pregnancy, my father's long illness, and the fact that I'm lazy).
My contracted books will consist of oral histories, with lots of historical background written by Yours Truly to put it all into perspective. I'm fighting now to have 1940's/current photographs of each person in the book (but good photo reproduction is expensive, and I'm not an established author). History is big, now, so I'm told, and I expect these to be well-received, as long as I don't mess the projects up.
My third, optioned book ("optioned" means they paid me a fee to get a first look at the finished manuscript) will be the story of the industrial build-up of the U.S. from 1940 (when the build-up actually started) to 1945. It's all based on original research I did over the past 15 years.
I haven't got a title, and haven't developed it very much. Since I have a set contract for the first two, and an insistent agent, I'm concentrating on getting them finished first. However, school is getting in the way. Have to make a living and all that.
Praeger is my publisher--they're a wonderful publisher; they treat authors very well and the books they print are beautiful. I really feel these will turn out to be something I can be proud of.
Natch. But your failure to find faults in his administration shows just how clueless you are.
W is a puppet. He not only has never articulated great goals (what is the war on "terror"? "Terrorism" is a warfighting strategy, not an opponent), but I doubt he could spell the word. When we gave up chasing the Taliban and Osama, turned left, and seized oil fields, I didn't need to be told anything else.
Leftist gobbledygook, and again you're ill-informed. We haven't stopped chasing the Taliban and Osama. In fact we're still engaged in Afghanistan and plan to do so until every last vestige of democracy-hating Islamic scum is wiped off the Afghanistan soil.
He left pharmaceuticals for a history teaching career. (A mouth-breathing Hmmmmm...lol)
Reagan was a real leader. He clearly defined great goals, and met them.
Yes he was. A Charismatic leader. But a charismatic leader is not always a good leader. (see: Bill Clinton)
(My favorite Reagan quote: "What is my strategy for defeating the Soviet Union? We win and they lose.")
Except, we stand at the brink of facing the Soviet Union again. So, defeat may have been only temporary. (which in no way compromises Reagan's accomplishment)
W is a puppet.
A puppet of whom? Could you be specific? The only master I have seen President Bush bend knee to is God.
He not only has never articulated great goals (what is the war on "terror"? "Terrorism" is a warfighting strategy, not an opponent), but I doubt he could spell the word.
At the beginning of this conflict over Iraq, after 9/11, I believe the President made public his goals, plans, which are a matter of public record.
When we gave up chasing the Taliban and Osama, turned left, and seized oil fields, I didn't need to be told anything else.
What makes you think we have given up? Where are these seized oil fields? Military protection is not the same as seizure, and the Iraqi's have taken over much of the guardianship police and military-wise in the past two months. As far as the Taliban, you are speaking of a label. When the criminals change labels, you would do well to ignore the labels and follow the crimes. The criminals are using priestly frocks to hide behind, and don't really much care about the label they are under. Baath, Taliban, Al Queda, Al Quida, Red Dawn.
There are over (IIRC) 300 REGISTERED terrorist groups worldwide.
Osama has very little value to his supporters right now. He may very well be dead.
Thanks for letting me respond to your litany.
I have three questions. You implied President Bush could not spell Terrorism.
How many degrees do you have, for instance?
How many degrees do you think President Bush has?
Do you have any recorded instance of him mis-spelling any words?
LOL!
I believe he's still very much into pharmaceuticals.
Listed under "hobbies" on his resume.
Just a reminder (with your comment that President Bush couldn't spell terrorism) that people who live in glass houses (the internet) should not throw bricks.
CFR. Allowing drunken sailor socialist spending bills to breeze by his desk. Next question.
Oh, now it makes sense; Doper in Chapel Hill!
It's good to see someone so invested in their hobby...and on his employer's time as well.
LOL!
#374 That's wicked funny. LOL
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.