Announcement: Americans For Rice.com

Americans For Dr. Rice ^ | May 24, 2005 | Section9

[section9]

In light of this story that appeared in the Washington Whispers column of U.S. News and World Report:

Rice Wants It--But in Draft Form

Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they're pushing her name out there. "She definitely wants to be president," said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted," he said.

our organization, Americans for Dr. Rice, would like to announce that it is our organizational intention to place Dr. Rice's name on the ballot in as many states as possible, as early as possible.

[EternalVigilance]

That's an awful lot of belief.

[sirthomasthemore]

But I'll say this, you're persistent.

Disciple, honestly, my desire is not to be perisistent in order to win an argument.

Take me at my word, my support of Dr. Rice is because, unlike Colin Powell who was a RINO, I honestly believe that Condi is a principled conservative who is not going to back down in the face of the inevitable onslaught from socialists that she is an "Oreo". I see her as Clarence Thomas, who has been a true a conservative as we could hope for.

Since, in order for our agenda to succeed, we have to wrest faith based Black Americans from the hold of the socialists (remember, it was basically Black American support that stayed loyal to Clinton and kept him from being thrown out of office), I hold great hope that Condi will lead a major party realignment. Many faith based Blacks, just as you and I, are upset with the direction the social culture is heading in America. With that added support, we have a better chance of ending this repugnancy, than in comparison, by relying on these RINO traitors.

She came out for the 2nd Amendment. Now, she has to modify her pro-choice stance. If she can do that, she'll have a far greater impact on the cultural future of this country, than any other GOP candidate.

If she makes those modifications, she can have the greatest effect on our social agenda since Lincoln. That's my hope; and I'll stick by her unless and until she forsakes her conservative agenda.

[Reagan Disciple]

Then my last question is how do you know what her agenda is? I don't know it. What is her view on taxes? Gov't spending? Judical activism? Social programs? China?

Problem is no matter what her views she has no background to stand on ex-foreign policy.

You can view her as a social experiment but I for one am not willing to bet the party on her in an effort to grab a few black votes.

Maybe Buchanan in his warped state of mind was right when he said the party of Reagan is dead. How you could consider tossing the principles that Reagan established for a handful of votes of some gender or minority is beyond me.

I'll put the life issue aside which will kill her hopes anyway. She has stated that the US should be part of a larger "global community". There is no way I want the US to play any part in any "global commmunity." Not the globe the way it stands today.

In my view, this makes Rice a globalist, along the same lines as Clinton. And her lack of public experience is so looming that she'll never get my vote.

[votelife]

when did Laura Bush become pro-life?

[sirthomasthemore]

when did Laura Bush become pro-life?

---

Vote-

As I said in an earlier post, I read it on the Board. You're the 2nd person who has indicated that her view has not changed- so whomever posted that statement was apparently wrong.

[sirthomasthemore]

Then my last question is how do you know what her agenda is? I don't know it.

---

Disciple, if you don't know it, then frankly, you're not in a position to criticize it- wouldn't you agree?

I have consistently said time will tell.That's what the primaries are all about. We'll learn everyone's position.
Then we can make an informed choice.

However, it appears, absent knowing her agenda, you have concluded "she'll never get my vote." Fine. Don't vote for her. That's your right as a citizen.

---

How you could consider tossing the principles that Reagan established for a handful of votes of some gender or minority is beyond me.

What principles are those?

[Reagan Disciple]

I am not critizing, I am merely pointing out she has no public record to speak of. What you have consistly said is that she supports the 2nd Amendment and she'll transform the country alla Lincoln. I don't remember you reserving judgement. I do remember you promoting her for president.

If in fact you are willing to wait for her to promote hew views, then why dream of putting her up against Hillary and pipe dreaming about grabbing black and female votes if you don't know where she stands now?

Do I really have to tell you the principles of the Reagan platform - father of the modern day conservative? Isn't that required knowledge to troll here?

[sirthomasthemore]

If in fact you are willing to wait for her to promote hew views, then why dream of putting her up against Hillary and pipe dreaming about grabbing black and female votes if you don't know where she stands now?

---

I promote her for all the reasons I have articulated in this thread. I reserve judgment as to whether or not to vote for her because the election is 3 years away- and as I indicated, she must stay true to the conservative agenda and modify her pro-choice stand- which I assume she will.

You could, for instance, say you support George Allen now. But what if he says in 2008 he will accept a pro-choice running mate? Do you still support him then?

One can only form an opinion for the here and now- I support Dr. Rice for President now, believing she will modify her views on abortion by 2008 and remain conservative.

As for President Reagan; he had 2 abiding principles (1) Don't speak ill of a fellow Republican; and (2) someone who agrees with me 9 out of 10 times is my friend.

Perhaps, these principles would be worth contemplating as you continue to attack our Republic Secretary of State. If you don't want to vote for her as President that's certainly your perogative- to demean her as unworthy to run for the office for lack of competency- is an absurdity. Perhaps you would like to meet her face to face and debate her?

[Non-Sequitur]

Has an unmarried person ever been president?

James Buchanan.

[Non-Sequitur]

Interesting website. It has everything on it except what she stands for.

[etcetera]

Condi wants to be the NFL Commisioner. But if she runs for president, I'd vote for her just on her 2nd Amendment stance.

[section9]

Interesting, except you didn't go to the Team Condi board where we have lots of stuff. Condi has been very public and above board on her position on life issues, RKBA, national defense, and education. Your position mystifies me.

Now part of the problem is that she is in no position right now to issue "official" position papers. That's just not done by someone in her office. Later on, when she does jump in, her staff weenies will put out her postition papers just like the Allen and Frist campaigns will. I will not even begin to speculate on the tortured reasoning that will go into the production of the HIllary Clinton position papers. Those will be nightmarish. On that we can agree.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[expatguy]

Never.

In the last week she has brought nothing but shame to our country.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Reagan Disciple]

How can pointing out that she has no experience in public office be demeaning her?

I don't vote for the presidency based on the vice president pick. Bush Sr. was not ardently pro-life when Reagan picked him, but if I could vote in 1980 I would have voted for Reagan in a heartbeat.

The first Reagan principle you cite is totally incorrect as he was a vocal opponent of president Nixon for his passiveness toward communism well before Watergate. As for the second point, Tip O'Neill disagreed with him 9 times out 10 but he still worked with him to push the defense bills through the House and still considered him a friend.

I think that in your defense of Condi based on her conservative principles (whatever they may be), you should first learn what the Reagan platform truly is. You'll find that Condi doesn't fit into that platform on many levels.

I have no interest in debating her. I know all I need to know about her - she is globalist who waffles on the life issue and has no meaningful experience. These are facts - I am not commenting on her personality or her private life as to demean her or besmearch her reputation. I make my decision not to support her based on her record, or lack thereof.

[sirthomasthemore]

Disciple, You have made your antipathy to Dr. Rice clear. In this thread, you have said that she should return to the private sector in 2008; you have equated her to “any yahoo who worked at State”; you suggest she is “enveloped in darkness”; and demeaned the SOS as a “wannbe NFL commissioner”.

We all understand, YOU DON’T LIKE HER! Fine. Don’t rationalize that transparent dislike by attempting to suggest that she lacks the qualifications to be President. By training, education and experience, she is eminently qualified to run for that office.

You don’t want to vote for her, ok. You would hate for her to be President- ok. But all your efforts in this thread to assure yourself that she will not be President, are to no avail. Her viability as a candidate is dependant on the criteria outlined in my post #22, and your personal dislike for her, does not enter that equation.

Now, I try to be civil on the Board and reply to all who post me. But here, I can’t continue discussing this matter with you- because I can’t help you. You want to end her candidacy here and now- and clearly, her candidacy solely resides on her own ambitions and future events. You can’t argue away her potential Presidency- this is mere futility.

Finally, if your desire is truly to be a Reagan disciple, you should do a search on the 11th commandment. Your apparent unfamiliarity with arguably his most famous pronouncement, calls into question your purported adherence to his legacy.

[Reagan Disciple]

I equated YOUR criteria on her as viable candidate to "any yahoo at State." She herself said she would like to be NFL commissioner. She is enveloped in the darkness of Reagan's shadow because she cannot be pro-choice and carry a conservative card at the same time.

Your twisting of words reads like a Clinton press release.

I'm fully aware of the 11th commandment. That must have come after he publically critized president Nixon's promotion of denete policy with Russia. Even Reagan messed up sometimes.

I like Rice just fine - as NSA, as SoS, as NFL commissioner, as provost. Basically as anything except president. Never in all of these posts did I attack her personally or spoke of anything other than her record.

If you would like to avoid all that and accuse me of continual "personal dislike," toward her, then you are right you can't help me. Even if I wasn't looking for it in the first place.

Like I said a bunch of posts ago, good luck in Iowa.

[shekkian]

James Buchanon (spelling uncertain)

[Unam Sanctam]

I vote for George Allen, with Condi as VP.

[Pippin]

"Good luck, but she won't get my vote. Unless she's changer her pro-abortion views that is."

Nor mine, I like Condi and think she'd be a great president but I'm also really turned off by her pro-choice stance.

My conscience won't let me vote for a pro-choice candidate no matter how much I like them on other issues.

[Pippin]

James Buchanan, 15th president of the US from 1857 - 1861