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
Oh that's a nice ticket. LOL
But I thought he said he HAD published books, am I wrong?
Attaining new knowledge stimulates me. It's why I come here. I can get many sides and make up my own mind.
When you come here you take the 'attacks' and that formulates your opinion of FR (apparently).
It also gives even lurkers the opportunity to have a very informed view and opinion of you as a person, and your political frame of reference.
The sword cuts both ways, and you are becoming like the black knight in the HOLY GRAIL.
He's said alot of things I don't agree with, or flat-out just don't believe.
Go back on your meds.
Semper Disgusted
I meant to go home, but I feel I owe you a partial reply, at least.
W is a product of the televison set, just as was Clinton. (I'm not comparing the two--I have nothing against W the same way I think Clinton was morally destructive to our society and was a traitor to boot). All we know about him is what we see on television, and his leadership can only be measured by its effects on our daily lives. We don't know W personally--you don't even know if he is truly religious, other than whatever you heard him read off a teleprompter. (Even Clinton went to church EVERY Sunday. See what I mean?)
I'm not implying that W isn't religious. I'm saying implicitly (did I spell that right?) that all we know about him is what we see on television. And television lies.
I think he's a puppet of those with money, as is any politician (or has been). That's why the borders are still open (business makes gobs of money suppressing everyone's wages by importing cheap, illegal labor--it's been done before with black slaves and Irish immigrants). He does what they want because they fund election ads on television.
We continue to go into debt as a nation because all the Federal government pays homage to the banks, who buy past debt and, through a variety of means, fund election ads on television.
Is there a pattern here? You bet.
Osama's organization launched 9/11--not Saddam. The direct perpetrators of that crime were sheltered in Afghanistan and Pakistan--that's where they should have been chased down and killed. Instead, the military took a hard left turn to pursue the oil fields because, face it, W and his cabinet are knee-deep in the oil industry. It's obvious.
I'll accept the realpolitik argument of seizing the oilfields before the Chinese got there. That still doesn't make the invasion of Iraq legal--though it WAS moral. A Saddam in a cage is better than a Saddam running loose.
I'm really tired, and want to call it a day. This is just a few elements of why I don't consider W two steps from Jesus, as my daddy says scoffingly. I have other reasons, a dozen or more, but it's time to call it a day.
Thank you for being reasonable.
You do mean the Monty Python version I hope.
And, yes, my spelling is awful. For most of this afternoon, was responding to three different threads simultaneously--and was expected to sound reasonable on two of them.
FR is not one of them. The intellectual level has dropped so far here (present company excluded) that it seems one can type any kind of insult and have a dozen others pat one on the back as if it were clever.
It's fun, though. I've got to start previewing my posts, though.
That's only natural after wasting so many hours of your employer's time. Time to get home to whip up some mushroom ravioli, a real southern favorite there.
But you give the credit to Bush being too "secretive". Unlike you, I'd rather have my public officials out there where I can see them. That way, they can all be held to account.
Sir, if you want to take over for me, please feel free. I'm going home.
cheers
These will be my first books. I've published professional articles.
His post #171 said, "We who can't teach publish books...." Soooooooooo, he can't teach but implies that he has already published. (Past tense implied.)
Well, you're the stupe that chose to "stick around" as it were.
Personally, I don't come here to be "patted on the back". You have to earn that privilege in life. If you insist on being a misinformed rube, don't expect to be "patted on the back by a dozen others" around here.
He can't teach and he hasn't published. Well at least we know he's proficient at screwing off at work. Notice how he has to go home and rest on his own time.
You've been here for a while. Do you remember when freepers were a little more...astute? Remember rb3 and mhKing and the others? All gone now.
I've been around for several years, and am appalled at some of these people (but not too appalled--I also post actively at fark.com...that's appalling).
And there's a lot to learn here. It's a great place to receive a nice digest of interesting articles, and to check out the evolution of the local groupthink.
Oh well, I'm out of here...
bookmark
The clock watcher's "Office Hours" are over....gotta get home for those mushrooms.
"Publish" also implies the process of writing and editing a book.
You're just drawing those circles ever closer, aren't you?
The one that helped finance the attack has no relevance?
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.