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
I would ask why they are here.
If they've dropped out, if they don't care about this country any longer, if everything ended in 1865, why do they bother to come to FR?
I don't consider, for instance, W victory a "win." It's just more of the same-old.
I'm not an alphabet voter. A victory by someone with an "R" after their name doesn't imply a "win" for me.
I'm willing to support a real leader, not just another corporate puppet whose job is to sell us out as quickly as possible.
With Gen. Tommy Franks (Ret.) as VP.
The biggest problem with those who "withhold" their vote in protest is that it doesn't send any sort of clear message. Was the vote withheld by a RINO because the nominee is too conservative, or by a hard conservative who thinks the nominee is too liberal?
Staying home sends no message other than that you stayed home. It doesn't tell anyone why you stayed home. So if your goal is to send a message, no message is being sent.
Name-calling is for children. Please elevate your rhetoric.
Again, it won't make any difference who you vote for until we have a real choice. Please reference "cognitive dissonance" on your favorite dictionary site, then go look in a mirror.
You have an interesting background, given your profile. Concerning what you said concerning the "Second Revolution" and the trampling of the Constitution, what did you think of the Constitution of the Confederate States? I know there are key differences between the 1787 Constitution and the Confederate one.
Then I can see why you'd sit it out; with criteria that high, neither party can satisfy you. :[
Columbine, FR doesn't exist only to cheerlead the Republican Party.
Conservatism does NOT imply Republican.
It implies a pro-life, pro-Constitition philosophy.
So when did you get out of the nuthouse?
God Bless and get back up, dust off and fight for what you want!
Please, sir, I'm not sitting at home out of protest. I just quit. That's not a protest. That's recognizing that the political process is irretrievably broken.
/By the way, my daddy was a 30-year Marine, who started his career as an underage grunt at Okinawa.
While I'm no expert on the Confederate Constitution (my area is World War II), I find myself attracted to the concepts of universal term limits, external revenue sources (no income tax), but find the idea of slavery abhorrent.
With a few changes, the original Constitution is just fine.
I hope and PRAY she gets nominated. I can't wait to see the faces of my liberal friends and relatives when they realize that they have to OPPOSE the first Woman President and the first Black President. I can hardly wait to see their uncomfortable squirming. The dems will finally be exposed as the racists that they actually are!
So, for how long have you been out of high school?
I reluctantly arrived at that conclusion, after having voted Libertarian in 00. It's not that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just that it can be very disappointing and nasty business. It's no fun voting for a clod.
Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Oh, and like voting for whomever the R(I)N(O)C throws their support for, even when it's for a RINO or DemonRAT lite vs a Conservative candidate, that is better?! Were your blinders a custom fit, or off the rack?
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...but one keeps the Laisses-Faire trappings to placate it's ruling eeeee-lites.
You advocate "Party over Principles". Seems to me that warchild9 and those he knows have more character than to be led by the nose to the slaughterhouse listening to the siren-song of "Trust me...I'm not like the others".
These last few years have shown that both parties are driving America off the cliff, one just has more speed.
The intelligent choice is to GET OUT OF THE FRICKIN' CAR....but it seems that some do not understand this.
Oh well...bear your chains lightly. But don't pull that "But X can wiiiiiin" crap on some of us anymore...we've seen what power and money do to even what were considered the best.
I agree with you. I would probably vote for her too if she ran. And IF she ever did (I can't see why see would either) I think it would not be for her own political aspirations, at least in the way we normally see that played out. And that can work for or against competency in the WH.
I am fighting for what I want. I am an active member of the League of the South, and financially support several statewide pro-life and pro-adoption organizations here in North Carolina. It's the political system I see as worthless, not my ideals.
Hillary couldn't win if you ran Algore against her. Robert Reich maybe.
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.