Why is Condi Rice a Republican? And can she be reprogrammed? (NOT A PARODY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 26, 2006 | JENNIFER HUNTER

[Chi-townChief]

It has always mystified me that Condoleezza Rice is a Republican. She's black, she's a woman, she's smart. (OK, I hear all you Republicans snorting and getting ready to e-mail. I will grudgingly allow there are other bright right-wingers -- but few black women Republicans, and who would sign up after the disasterous Bush White House response to Hurricane Katrina?)

It seems so counterintuitive that Rice, a woman raised in the racially charged atmosphere of Birmingham, Ala., in the 1950s, who knew two of the girls who were killed in the church bombing there in 1963, who had to overcome latent prejudice in academia, both as a woman and as an African American, should be a parrot for George W. Bush, a man so out of touch. What has she been smoking?

In fact, Rice was a bona fide Democrat until 1980, when she had an epiphany after overhearing a remark by President Jimmy Carter. He said he was shocked by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Rice, a scholar of Russian politics, was "shocked that anybody would be shocked by that," explained Nicholas Lemann in a profile of Rice for the New Yorker. Two years later she flipped to the GOP.

In some ways, Rice had always been a conservative, Lemann reported, untouched by the militancy of the '60s, including the civil rights movement; an only child who never rebelled; a woman who applied for post-graduate work at Stanford University on stationery that had her name embossed in gold across the top.

But as the saying goes, it's never too late to change. Or, in Rice's case, revert.

The Democrats could use Condi in the next election as a presidential candidate. Think about it: The Bushes got their hands on Rice when she was young and impressionable. She worked for Bush senior and got to know him well before she signed up with Dubya. It is hard sometimes to believe, when one hears her at press conferences or listens to her speeches, that she is saying what she believes, but rather that she is elegantly explaining -- since he can barely do it himself -- President Bush's positions.

"He's actually influencing her," notes Lemann, "and she seems to be performing for him the immensely useful service of transforming shorthand impulses into developed stated policy. When you hear Rice speaking, that's what Bush would sound like if he were as articulate as Rice is."

So what the Dems need to do is figure out how George capitivated her and impress upon her the error of her ways. I would love to see a woman in the White House next time, but I don't think Hillary Clinton is going to make it; her heart is in the right place, but she is too divisive and her recent speech at the Economic Club of Chicago made me want to put my head down on the table and have a long nap.

Hillary does not have the rhetorical flourishes to impassion those around her.

And, Rice -- if only she could be loosened from the Bush grasp and reprogrammed to become less aloof -- would make a dandy Democratic candidate. She could even go on the David Letterman show, a la Bill Clinton and his saxophone, and play the piano.

So this is my advice to the Democrats. Recruit Rice, develop some kind of solid program we bleeding heart liberals could embrace and then, get back into the White House! Got that?

mailto:jhunter@suntimes.com

[HawaiianGecko]

The mispelling of the word "disastrous" is egregious, especially to be not caught by the editor.

The placement of quote marks around disastrous indicated to me that you were quoting, so to speak, her spelling. Upon checking the article I see she did misspell the word and you corrected it in your post. To me the quotation marks indicated you were quoting her directly where it now appears you were simply highlighting the correction.

You are correct. It is an egregious error.

By the way, you misspelled misspelling. :-)

 

 

[T.Smith]

I'm sorry, I can't really respond to your post because I find it barely intelligible. I'm not trying to be rude. I honestly think you need to proof read what you have written and attempt to make your point a little more clearly.

I did understand one part well enough to respond, though.

This site is for conservatives who believe in pro life issues.

You're wrong. This site is for political discussion. Most of us on this site are conservative. The majority might also happen to be pro-life. However, one must not be a "pro-life conservative" to enjoy political discussion on this site.

[weezel]

Why are most Republicans grown up? Why did hanoi john carry only one age group, the youngsters? With age comes wisdom. Youngins aint got a clue.

[maine-iac7]

Good lord what is it with the pro baby killers? I am seriously amazed that you are on this website.

So tell me, (or continue to pontificate) If you, or your 13-14 year old daughter, were brutally raped by a Neanderthal criminal, and a pregnancy resulted, you or she should be forced to carry out the pregnancy - thus relive the rape every day for 9 months, give birth to a baby she'd either have to give up and hold guilt over for the rest of her life - or keep a baby she couldn't look at with out reliving the rape...not to mention the danger of such a young child in childbirth?

Until you have walked in those moccasins YOURSELF, you cannot rightfully judge.

Yes, abortion for convenience must be stopped as the abhorrent act it is...however, there are rare exceptions when other consequences must be taken into account/

[NutCrackerBoy]

By the way, you misspelled misspelling. :-)

Fair enough. Spell check should be my friend. (And the author's, Jennifer Hunter's.)

[maine-iac7]

I'm a bit confused as that's the way I spell it.

but in the article, if you'd check, the writer spelled it "disasterous" -

[napscoordinator]

First of all only have sons, however if I did have daughters yes she would carry the baby to birth and then my wife and I would raise the baby. At 18 she could decide then what to do either allow us to continue raising the child or she could. I am sorry but you cannot blame the baby for this. The Neanderthal is to blame.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Most of us on this site are conservative. The majority might also happen to be pro-life. However, one must not be a "pro-life conservative" to enjoy political discussion on this site.

There is much common cause in the conservative movement. For example, there are people in it who are strongly committed to push appointments of originalist judges, who would be more than happy to reverse Roe v. Wade (a horrible Supreme Court decision), who believe in the concept of "culture of life," but who would vote in their states, if given the chance, for a regulated freedom of a patient and willing doctor to abort pregnancies.

(Not to reject conservatives who have nowhere near the pro-life-friendly profile I described.)

[maine-iac7]

First of all only have sons, however if I did have daughters yes she would carry the baby to birth and then my wife and I would raise the baby. At 18 she could decide then what to do

Easy to SAY - but like I said, until and unless you have actually faced it = you cannot rightfully judge. (I notice, in your pontification, that you would not give you young daughter any say in whether or not to carry the pregnancy thru'. - Also, after she has carried it thru', and you have raised it in your home for several years = then she would get to choose whether to let you continue as it's parents or she could take over = at 18 - to raise a child already a toddler. I assume you would continue to assume the financial support of the two, and not plunge her and the child into the bleak outlook of a single mom with only a high school diploma?

Come back and tell us how things went AFTER you have had to actually face the situation.

For me, in this situation and many others, I try to remember; "There but for the Grace of God, go I."

[RoadTest]

JENNIFER HUNTER, you must be the typical Bolshevik Liberal. You think the Federal Government is the nanny-in-charge in all situations. Hurricane Katrina and the Federal government have absolutely no connection whatever, except in the brain of people like you who want to nail President Bush with anything you can get your hands on or fabricate in your dark little rumor-monger shops.

We are not going to let you or your ilk turn this country into a Communist gulag.

Open your eyes to reality and step to the Right. You'll like it.

[subterfuge]

RACISM rears it's ugly head from the pen of a psuedo-journalist once again.

What has she been smoking?

Blantanty racist statement. As if a black person must be on drugs to oppose the psuedo-journalist's views and that they can't think for themselfs.

She had an epiphany after "overhearing" Jimmy Carter say something stupid? Racism again, implying the "scholar" Rice got it wrong and the peanut farmer was right.

It is hard sometimes to believe, when one hears her at press conferences or listens to her speeches, that she is saying what she believes

Racism. This moronic psuedo-jounalist is calling the black person a deciever. She must think all blacks that don't tow the dem line are liars. She must be hanging around Al Sharpton and JJ alot.

Bush is influencing her?

Racism. A supposedly horrendous man the left thinks is a complete moron that can't tie his shoe is "influencing" the poor confused black American who she thinks is "performing for him" like a trained chimp. Tisk, tisk. The writer is a racist.

Bush has "captivated" and "reprogrammed her".

Racism again as the deluded writer believes Rice must be of inferior stock to have been captivated and reprogramed by the dumbest man of all time.

It's very sad and telling to me that this person gets the blatantly racist article published. Black Americans should be calling for her head imo.

[napscoordinator]

Why are you unable to just take me at my word? I believe that at the least everyone on this site is at least descent people. We might have disagreements, but I would not say something that I wholehardedly believe in. I am flexible in many things except for this one particular issue. It is something that I deeply think is wrong. There are issues that would probably make you think I am liberal. It just this issue that I feel stongly for. BTW, I would never just kick anybody out of my house. I would take care of them for as long as necessary. Of course you still need to teach responsibility and taking care of oneself eventually (22 30 50 years old). This issue has always been heated and I would imagine that it will never be settled.

[jan in Colorado]

>>>>she had an epiphany after overhearing a remark by President Jimmy Carter.<<<

I have a new appreciation for Mr. Carter. I guess I'm not the only one who "woke up" because of President Carter!

Post #62 by jerod...worth repeating...

"I joined for different reasons. I found a party that sees me as an individual, not as part of a group. I found a party that puts family first. I found a party that has love of liberty at its core. And I found a party that believes that peace begins with strength."

Jerod, may I ask where you found that quote? I have tried to find when/where Dr. Rice said that and have been unable to find it. I especially like her comment that "Peace begins with strength." Something the Democrats just don't "get."

[IamConservative]

I printed this and put it in my puppies cage. Out of respect for feculence, the puppy would not use it.

Interesting the author used the Civil Rights era as a reason for Condi to reject the Republicans. Apparently someone missed a few history lessons..

[FlyVet]

Well, at least the writer used the word "reprogrammed" instead of "deprogrammed", which is what needs to be done to Dummycrats. Jennifer is as deep as a dinner plate.

[Liberty Valance]

"It has always mystified me that Condoleezza Rice is a Republican."



It's because she's smarter than Jennifer Hunter could ever hope to be.

[philled]

Ms. Hunter:

I found your recent piece on Secretary of State Rice to be offensive, demeaning and replete with bigotry. Ms. Rice is a woman that you Democrats (liberals, progressives, or whatever the focus group name du jur is) should celebrate. Instead, she is degraded and your assertion that she should become “reprogrammed” is an affront to her achievement.

Why should she be a Republican? Because she is a strong and intelligent free-thinking woman who has made a personal decision based on her experiences and values. According to you, African-Americans should be Democrats. They are a group- not individuals. Dr. Rice is proof of the power of the individual. The left’s notions of “diversity” are the same as their concept of “tolerance” which often means ignoring/censoring/denigrating those that do not fit your template.

President Carter’s ineptitude and obliviousness may have served as the final straw but the decision should not be based on race. Your article suggests that she should get back to the plantation that the party of Lincoln abolished. Should your piece be viewed as a Night Rider warning to her? The Democrats formed and used the Klan to address “wrong-thinking Negroes” just as you are using the Chicago Sun.

Ask yourself not why Rice should be a Republican but why Senator Byrd (D-WV) should be a Democrat. One experienced racial violence and hatred, the other was a participant. One is the future of their party, the other is a feeble reminder of their party’s faded glory. We should be so fortunate to have a nation of Condi Rices...

[Musket]

Typical Chicago female.

[AnnaZ]

I agree with one thing here... CONDI IN '08, but with a big fat R after her name.

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks for the ping. Saving for later!