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
Please spare us from another clownish run by the clueless Mr. Keyes. The likelihood of him winning ANY office is on a par with the likelihood of Osama bin Laden converting to Chirstianity and donating his fortune to the families of the 9/11 victims. His last campaign was such a joke, that his Democratic opponent basically abandoned his own campaign as unnecessary, and took to running around the country doing fundraising appearances for other Democrats.
In between his out-of-the-blue attack on Dick Cheney's gay daughter, and his own teenage daughter's public announcement that she is "a liberal queer", Alan treated us to an explanation of why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children -- because the children wouldn't know who their parents are and might inadvertently end up committing incest. Poor Alan, distracted by his Fred-Phelpsian obsession with all things homosexual, forgot that children who are adopted by married heterosexuals also rarely know who their biological parents are.
I don't have the time to list them all, but let's note that the Fourth Amendment secures our persons, papers, and PROPERTY against any search carried out without judicial fiat. Under the buncom Patriot Act, the judicial fiat is carried out after the fact, and the storm troopers can ram their way into your house any time they like. (Oh, but they wouldn't do it to you. History shows unthinking people assume "it'll never happen to me," until it does.)
Only a shill for corporate America would keep our borders wide open in time of war in order to assure the business class of a massive supply of cheap labor to undercut Americans.
I can go on but you used bold type, which means you are fleeing from cognitive dissonance, and wouldn't listen anyway.
Alan is entertaining; that's my only support of his candidacy. If I wanted to back a winner for winning's sake, I'd have supported Clinton, who destroyed his Republican challengers.
*sigh*
In our house, we're backing Alan Keyes, again.
Great, more votes toward making Hillary our - and our troops' - Commander in Chief in 2008... :-(
She thanks you in advance... just as her husband thanked the Perot voters.
So you have a soft spot for traitors? The exact kind Washington warned about in the Farewell Address.
You need to get out more; not one Republican I know is sitting this one out.
McCain or Guiliani are the only ones who'd bring them up away from their television sets.
I can see what part of your problem is; your GOP 'friends' are fools; the rest of us aren't.
I can tell how serious you are about your country by the fact that you are about to support a man who won't even be on the ticket. DUH.
Mainly to the Democrats, who can count on more votes and more money every time he opens his mouth.
Righ t; a win for you is "voting" for a candidate who won't even be on the ballot..........LOL.
***************
Good for him. What about you?
To muck it up for the rest of us; they'll be here all during the elections telling us we're not "real conservatives" and we "don't have any principles.
They get off on it.
Nutmeg, please, how many times will the FR knee jerk and "Hillary will win therefore" pop out of the mouth?
How many times must I repeat my view? Ergo: it won't make a dime's worth of difference who is president. Taxes will continue to rise, the debt will continue to rise, Mexicans will continue to invade, COMMUNIST China will continue to buy us, the same people will continue to economically rape the Middle Class ( I include the AARP and others of that sort in that classification) while Osama giggles and gesticulates and waggles his beard at the whole mess.
Reagan is dead, and the system will never let someone like Ron Paul rise to a higher level. I quit. So have a lot of others. No insults or threats of "Hillary" will change reality.
Howlin, old dog, haven't heard from you for a while. And still mouthing emptinesses, I see.
Then shut up and let us take care of the country.
I'm with you on that! I hope she gets to do what SHE wants to do. Not what we want her to do.
You are a useless poster; irrelvant to the point of hilarity.
It takes a while for a certain type to be attracted to a thread and bring it down several levels intellectually. This thread started out pretty well.
Troll...DU...
I joined an exodus of old-timers from FR a few months back back because it was being taken over by individuals who were, shall we say, intellectually inferior. I came back briefly to see if all the jokes over the internet about FR were wrong.
They're not.
Please man what kind of loser fantasy are you having? Did you sleep throught he IL election last cycle? After seeing Keyes lose so badly do you honestly think that he could place anywhere but last in a Republican primary? Time to buy a clue.
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.