Posted on 11/17/2004 7:41:57 PM PST by CollegeConservative.com
Before you ask, I will answer: No, it is not too early to talk about 2008, even though President Bush has yet to be sworn into office for a second term and even though the person who will be our next President has not even been confirmed for her Secretary of State post yet. Besides, I want to be on record early so if I am wrong, no one will have remembered my prediction by 2008, and if I am right, it will prove how wise I am.
But before I get to Dr. Rice, I’ll have to say why the Mainstream Media's Republican darlings will not come out on top. First, the party faithful will not rally around a pro-choice candidate, end of story. Sorry Rudy. Second, John McCain’s popularity relies on moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and the liberal press. As a general rule, never trust a Republican who is “respected” and is niftily nicknamed and admired (Oh, it’s Maverick!) by the New York Times.
It is not so much that these candidates would necessarily be bad choices, and in fact both would probably have a good shot at winning the Presidency if given the chance. But Republicans like their Presidential nominees to share their values, be passionate about their issues, and to play hardball when necessary. Rudy G. is a tempting candidate but perhaps too flawed, and McCain refuses to launch off some spitballs when needed and licks the boots of Democrats far too often (that and he sticks us with really bad legislation like Campaign Finance Deform.)
On to Dr. Rice. Historically speaking, after a President is twice elected the next candidate from the incumbent party is generally a major figure from that administration. Most often, the Vice-President is a shoe-in for the nomination. Gore followed Clinton, Bush Sr. followed Reagan, Nixon followed Eisenhower, and so on. Had Kerry been twice elected John Edwards would have been the probable candidate in 2012.
However, it is highly unlikely that VP Cheney will seek the nomination, allowing for somewhat of a break in tradition, and begging the question: now who? Which brings us to the soon-to-be third most influential person in the Bush Administration and, possibly, the United States: Condoleezza Rice. Among members of the administration, Rice has the most face and name recognition, something that will only grow given the stature of the Secretary of State post. Her approval ratings have been among the highest in the Bush administration (59% favorable, 24% unfavorable – CNN/Gallup), generally trailing only outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In 2008, the focus of the election will likely be foreign policy issues and the battle against global terror. If there is significant progress in the War on Terror and in the Palestine-Israeli conflict, then a strong case will be made for the continuation of Bush’s policy, of which Dr. Rice has been instrumental in shaping and supporting. Given Rice’s expertise and experience in international relations, and given the relationships she will have time to strengthen over the next four years, she will be well prepared for the challenges ahead, and more so than any other Presidential wannabe could be.
If Rice decides to go for the nomination, President Bush will likely support his close friend and adviser. Dr. Rice, a concert pianist and a former Stanford University Provost who earned a Bachelors at 19, a Masters a year later, and then a Doctorate all before turning 30 may even become the first Republican candidate to successfully avoid being called an “idiot” by liberals. Though, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I remember a couple years back when Dr. Rice was a guest on Oprah. Her passion was unbelievable, her sincerity unquestionable, and her presence overwhelming. It was that day that I knew that what her parents told her growing up could possibly one day come true: that she too could be President of these United States. I for one, think they were on to something.
Never. A pro-abortion candidate would go down in flames. Huge numbers of people would stay home.
I like her very much, and I'm delighted that she has been nominated to be Secretary of State. But I wouldn't vote for her for president in a million years.
Too bad, but she's pro-abort, and unlikely to change.
Well, Democrats don't change ... but Republicans REALLY don't change, Repubs best reflect my values but I don't always agree with them.
Allow me to posit a few thoughts.
I strongly believe that were Rice to choose Bobby Jindal as her running mate, we could look at a fifty state route.
Bobby Jindal will be thirty six, a two term congressman. He is a devout Catholic with several young children. He is a Rhodes Scholar, an intense social conservative without being abrasive and he is from the South. Furthermore, he is a genius with incredible domestic policy experience. In his twenties he was made the Director of the Bi-Partisan Social Security (or was it Medicare?) Commission...he has served as a Deputy Secretary of Heatlh and Human Services...he will nicely compliment Condi, as her experience is more foreign and security issues.
Also, he is a first generation Indian American.
Can you imagine that ticket, Rice and Jindal!
It has been continually stated, though not in this column, that national face recognition, a power player, will have to be selected to challenge Hill. I agree. This is part of the reason Rudy is considered an attractive candidate. Other reasons are that he responded admirably in the midst of 9-11 and would be attractive on the foreign policy angle, though less attractive on the social and domestic front.
What is never stated is that the RNC candidate will have to have the stature to keep even with G.W. Our candidate must not be dwarfed by our President, in some respects I think Bush 41 was weakened by riding Reagan's wave.
I think Condi has the stature to keep pace of both Hill and G.W.
I'll be honest, at this stage, Condi is my first choice but she hasn't been veted as of yet. Her positions on important issues are not firmly known so the primary will play a role in determining her strength and leanings, and whether she is compatible enough with the RNC base to earn the nomination.
Her performance in the next four years will play a big role in whether she is a viable candidate for '08 as well. The first wrinkle I can perceive at this point is that Condi has always seemed reluntant to pursue the presidency. While I certainly do not want to nominate someone that has beleived they were entitled to the position since birth, our candidate will have to desire the job.
everyone here thinks we could stand up an inflatble Nixon doll and beat Hillary because "she has no chance". they are wrong, she has a decent chance. She can win all the Kerry states, and with Richardson on the ticket, she will make a play for NM, NV, AZ, CO - which are becoming more Hispanic every year. Our side needs to make a move to take Wisconsin and Minnesota.
we should start forming 527s now, I would even suggest running ads against her in the battleground states as early as next year. call me crazy, but she is beginning her "redefining" phase right now, and these ads would serve well to point out her real record. We can just leave her out there for 4 years with nothing but glowing media attention, and then start the campaign against her in September 2008. And there are no swift boat vets coming to help us this time.
That's the consensus opinion on this forum, but I don't have a clue what it's based upon. I've never seen a link to any of her statements that remotely address that issue.
The Republicans don't even have a consensus position on the issue. It goes from everywhere from an inviolate right to life from the moment of conception to pro-choice if it occurs early enough or with other extenuating factors.
I really don't know where she stands on this issue and until I hear her say it, I'm not going to judge her on it.
Pace Cicero,
I am sure that Condi will be supportive of the "Culture of Life" I am sure she is (or will adopt) a position in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and in favor of a ban on partial birth abortion....etc...etc...etc...
She is barely pro-choice, as far as I can tell. The last time she spoke to the issue was in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in December of 2001. She said that she was pro-choice but believed in restrictions such as parental notification. She hasn't spoken to the issue in three years because she had enough problem vetting choices for Bush.
At State, we'll find out more about her.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I do support Dr. Coni Rice for President of the United States.
"Besides, I want to be on record early so if I am wrong, no one will have remembered my prediction by 2008, and if I am right, it will prove how wise I am."
ROFLMAO! That's the spirit!
I neither believe Hill has a lock on the W.H. nor that she is easily beaten.
I do partially agree that the campaign should begin early, though time should be left for a breather since the entire country is sick of politics at this point. Where I disagree is in signaling her out, she has not received the nomination and to do so hints at fear.
Instead, I think ads should suface to educate people about liberalism and the policies we are moving to implement. The MSM is going to advertise for the Libs, we should counter with 527's explaining why our policies will better this nation. This way we continue to campaign on issues on a broader scale, while avoiding the trap of consolidating our attention on one person.
I wouldn't be suprised if she evolves on that issue, in a good way.
Tom Tancredo 2008
I'm still of the mind that it is not Condi Rice in 2008. But if Carl Rove works for her and another million of us hit the streets to campaign, it's definitely doable.
Dr. Rice in "08"
"Do you think that when are nation is experiencing a time of war that people will be willing to elect a female President?"
I think about this a lot myself, and I think the answer is NO! It is especially NO! if the question is Hillary! If there is another female candidate there might be a chance. But Hillary will go down, harder than Gore,harder than John Effin.
Why am I so sure about this? Because I, myself, will personally lead the biggest voter registration/GOTV campaign ever in American history, as I go from bar to saloon to tavern asking the (non-voting I bet A LOT of them are) men there, do you want this woman to rule our nation?
I will be like "Liberty" in the famous French painting, leading the oppressed to freedom. They'll all be drunks, of course, BUT EVER VOTE MUST COUNT!
I'm not sure why we'd find out more about her position on abortion in her new position. Unless she volunteers it, it's not an issue. Her new job involves foreign relations, even more than her current job.
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.