Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Condi Says She’s Not Running. Believe It this time.
RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 01/17/2006 | Jay Cost

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


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: condi; notrunning; rice; rice2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461 next last
To: FOG724

If you don't want to be honest about who you were, try not to make remarks that show you've been here before.


441 posted on 01/17/2006 2:00:10 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I figured he was probably harassing others in FReepmail.


442 posted on 01/17/2006 2:00:13 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper ("Tucker Carlson could reveal himself as a castrated, lesbian, rodeo clown ...wouldn't surprise me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

He is.


443 posted on 01/17/2006 2:00:45 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
If you don't want to be honest about who you were, try not to make remarks that show you've been here before.

There you go assuming again. I never said I didn't want to be honest. Don't care if people know. What I said was it's none of your business.

444 posted on 01/17/2006 2:02:30 PM PST by FOG724 (Governor Spendanator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

I always thought it was short for Tablespoon.


445 posted on 01/17/2006 2:02:36 PM PST by CWOJackson (tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in the Star Wars trilogy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

LOL LOL LOL! Good one.


446 posted on 01/17/2006 2:03:47 PM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

Well, go ahead and tell everybody else who you are; I won't look.

Or can we just all go read about it over at CP?


447 posted on 01/17/2006 2:12:49 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Or can we just all go read about it over at CP?

I don't post at CP.

448 posted on 01/17/2006 2:16:20 PM PST by FOG724 (Governor Spendanator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

You mean now, of course?


449 posted on 01/17/2006 2:21:01 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You mean now, of course?

What difference does it make to you, why do you care? Why the personal attacks on someone you didn't know? Talk about emulating CP behavior.

450 posted on 01/17/2006 2:24:55 PM PST by FOG724 (Governor Spendanator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: FOG724
"Why the personal attacks on someone you didn't know?"

I think they should be up front about it. They would like to know if you where banded before from FreeRepublic or did you just lose your account info?

451 posted on 01/17/2006 2:34:25 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* “I love you guys”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: FOG724
why do you care?

Because you made statements that lead us all to think you were a retread.

Talk about emulating CP behavior.

Try not to be so sanctimonious; after all, I'm not the one who went to another site and trashed FR.

452 posted on 01/17/2006 2:37:29 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

I made a simple comment saying I agreed that some of the good freepers were gone and suddenly I'm the bad guy, attacked for no reason what so ever.


453 posted on 01/17/2006 2:59:51 PM PST by FOG724 (Governor Spendanator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: FOG724

By not answering the question, our natural tendency is to assume the worse.


454 posted on 01/17/2006 3:04:24 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* “I love you guys”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
By not answering the question, our natural tendency is to assume the worse.

But I did answer the question. I just don't want it blasted all over the thread and beside, the length of time I have been posting doesn't matter. Why was it even brought up? It served no purpose other than to personally attack a stranger.

455 posted on 01/17/2006 3:07:15 PM PST by FOG724 (Governor Spendanator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Oh that's a nice ticket. LOL

Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream

456 posted on 01/17/2006 3:59:12 PM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
"It's the dribble-cup "Vote (R) no matter what" garbage that has caused both Parties to be indistinguishable from each other. Both have become Socialist bastions..."

Indeed they have.

457 posted on 01/17/2006 4:32:27 PM PST by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: warchild9

Thank you, sir. For some reason, JimRob has tolerated the continued presence of an old, out-of-step antiwar freeper (remember Kosovo when I was in the majority here!?).


458 posted on 01/17/2006 6:07:18 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
PEOPLE HERE HAVE TO REMEMBER ONE THING:
IF SHE EVEN *HINTS* AT RUNNING FOR PRES. THEN THIS BECOMES A TWO AND A HALF YEAR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RACE- STARTING IMMEDIATELY

459 posted on 01/18/2006 6:25:14 AM PST by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

IMO in spite of all the media hyperventilating over her, Hillary does not wear well. She can not do a listening tour for this one, and every time she opens her mouth, the sounds are both harsh and repellent. Real women will not see her as their leader, and I sure hope men will also be turned off by this b*tch, for that is what she is....a blind man could see that.


460 posted on 01/18/2006 1:51:55 PM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson