Put me down as being among those who are highly skeptical about the prospect of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice being tapped to be Mitt Romney’s running mate. The media frenzy about the possibility is understandable but despite all the arguments weighing her possible impact on the general election, you really don’t have to go further than the impact of the issue of abortion. Simply put, Mitt Romney needs a united Republican Party and given the questions that were raised about whether he was a genuine conservative and his late conversion to the anti-abortion cause, the idea that he will pick someone who is pro-choice rather than pro-life seems utterly improbable.
As some wags pointed out during the prelude to the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, covering a story like Romney’s vice presidential pick is like covering an election without opinion polls. Nobody knows what’s really going on except for Romney. Both Michael and Alana have discussed some of the problems that Rice would create for Romney. The list is already long but there’s one more point to be raised. If Romney is planning on taking advantage of President Obama’s questionable record on Israel in order to eat into the Democrats’ historic monopoly on the Jewish vote, Rice will make that task harder. During her tenure as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State during the George W. Bush administration, Rice consistently took stands that were viewed with suspicion by the pro-Israel community. Indeed, it could be said that during Bush’s last two years of office, which was the period during which was ascendant on foreign policy, Rice had reversed the president’s tilt toward Israel as she embarked upon another failed attempt to revive the peace process.
Rice, who seems cut from the “realist” school that was most comfortable during the presidency of the elder George Bush, was a persistent critic of Israel even once falsely comparing the plight of Palestinians to that of African-Americans prior to the Civil Rights era. Though the second President Bush had formally committed the United States to an endorsement of Israel’s right to hold onto various parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem in a peace accord in 2004, Rice seemed to distance herself from that pledge as she foolishly sought to revive the peace process despite a lack of interest in the idea on the part of the Palestinians. Slipping into the pattern that had been a keystone of U.S. foreign policy under both the first Bush and Bill Clinton, Rice seemed uninterested in holding the Palestinian Authority accountable for its behavior or even its rejection of the offer of a state that it got from Israel at the time of the Annapolis summit that she promoted.
Though Rice’s stands were not aimed at distancing the United States from Israel, as was the intent of President Obama’s constant fighting with Jerusalem prior to his current election-year Jewish charm offensive, she nevertheless developed a reputation as someone who was less committed to the alliance than her boss in the Oval Office.
Rice’s presence on the ticket will cost Romney far more evangelical votes than she could possibly lose in the Jewish community. Nevertheless, Rice will give Jewish Democrats a chance to fire back at Republicans who have been touting the contrast between Obama and Romney. Though Rice is a brilliant and accomplished woman whose personal story will be an inspiration to the country, she will diminish the chances that Romney will, as some expect, gain more Jewish votes than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. That’s not as nearly as important as the problems she will create with the conservative base of the Republican Party but it is one more reason to believe that the Rice boomlet isn’t real.
Well said. The bottom line for most conservatives, I think, is the desire to have a solid conservative with Romney on the ticket. But it cannot be understated the desire to not want to defend the Bush years in this election. Rice on the ticket makes it certain that we would have to relitigate many policies of the Bush Administration on turf favorable to Democrats. Dick Cheney hosted a fundraiser for Romney in my state last night. One has to wonder if the former Vice President included the f-bomb in his response to Gov. Romney's request for his thoughts on a Rice pick in this phrase; "You'd have to be out of your (possible f-bombing) mind!"
Justice Roberts should by Romney's VP pick–for that would get an incompetent Chief Justice off the bench, and give Romney an opportunity to put the next one on the bench–provided Republicans in the refuse to vote for a Obama nominee.
Or , Roberts could just retire and Rommey could pick a competent VP like Rubio or Rice
How did a Morman like Mitt become Zionist, then become Bibi's b-word?
Mr. Tobin, makes a few good points, however nobody in their right mind could really belive Obama is any kind of friend of Israel, so Condi would not cost any Jewish votes, and could actually be a net asset in the Jewish community . Social consevatives will not bail on Rommey over Rice, as the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
It's possible you're right, but why take a chance. No one is saying Rice will make "friends of Israel" turn to Obama, but they might say what's the difference and stay home. The same might be the response of social conservatives, who may be at this point way more upset than supposed by the general Republican anti-social-conservative comments and opinions, implying perhaps to them that their voice in the party was unwelcome, that were raised when Santorum seemed most viable an alternative to Romney.
Good points, and while I would prefer Rubio , you could do a lot worst than Condi. With the attack dogs of Team Obama , I wonder if there is such a thing as a safe VP pick.
It's not only that her record in regards to Israel and its security and self-defense is scandalous and detrimental for Israel, i.e. her implacable insistence on Jews leaving all of Gaza, but for the US, especially, now. Israel is the sole true sovereign democratic government in the region. With the fall of US allies, like Mubarak, we do not have a reliable ally in the region. Furthermore, the Obama/ Hillary relationships with Soros, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its offshoots of Hamas and Hezbollah, compromise our very domestic and foreign security and stability, our National Interest nmilitarily and economically, and, of course, our corporate high-tech industry the IDF protects and our Energy sector. Supporting Israel is not just one-sided. It is for our own protection. No one mentions the threats to our Trade routes, especially, the Suez Canal, nor the billions and billions of nmilitary equipment we gave Egypt.Her stance in relation to the UN Res. in regards to Lebanon and its complete lack of enforcement to preclude Hezbollah from receiving constant weapons supplies nnot permitted under the Resolution is another highly dangerous spectre. Her relationship with Jack Straw should be thoroughly vetted as well. His influence on her thinking and, therefore , on her policy stances she drove through George W. Bush, placed Britain in the driver's seat against Israel -one more time. nOne more concern is what happened with her as Sec.of State during which our relationship with Russia greatly deteriorated. Obama and Hillary furthered its demise.Currently, it is in dire need of repair. We are buying helicopters from Russia!? Signed away our defense treaty and on and on… nI disagree, in that I do not think she is that bright. She was and is very lucky and has lived at a most opportune time in history for women. nFrankly, we need a very strong, knowledgeable, and experienced man to represent us in the role of VP and Secretary of State. Romney can certainly use someone who knows his way around Washington, the various world capitols and cultures with whom we must deal, who knows and understands our enemy in the Jihadists , and is a stanch, unwavering American. Time has run out nand we have to get back on track to go forward. n
Condi is a very, very bad pick because she was a very, very bad National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. There is absolutely no reason to pick her other than race, which is stupid reason.
True, Condi made a few bad calls as NSA and as SOS, however she has admitted to these in her autobiography and has learned from her past errors. Compaired to Obama, she is absolutey a FP genius.
The fact that Rice has been taken seriously will already garner whatever benefit she is to the Republican ticket. I think it helps her, too. The liberal press sure used a lot of racist attacks on Rice when Bush was President, so that she was pretty well despised by blacks. Now she's being depicted as formidable and a stateswoman, an historical figure. That is nice for her. And, whether or not it wins a single vote, it proves that over-the-top critics of Republicans are really over-the-top. That can't be bad. Making her the VP candidate, however, doesn't do anything more in the positive compared to any other formidable candidate, but it does allow for the chance of the negatives to come into play.
It's not only that her record in regards to Israel and its security and self-defense is scandalous and detrimental for Israel, i.e. her implacable insistence on Jews leaving all of Gaza, but for the US, especially, now. Israel is the sole true sovereign democratic government in the region. With the fall of US allies, like Mubarak, we do not have a reliable ally in the region. Furthermore, the Obama/ Hillary relationships with Soros, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its offshoots of Hamas and Hezbollah, compromise our very domestic and foreign security and stability, our National Interest
"the truth barely puts on his sheos as the lie has already traveled around the world." where do you get this idea that her conduct was "scandalous and detrimental' to israel? Gaza? Leaving Gaza was the creature of Sharon and no one else. and actually, this may very well have been 'losing a battle but winnign the war". There may not be ten Israelis who would leave Judea and Samaria now, after the terrbile expereince of gaza. Plus, Isfrael has lopped off overba million Arabs from its demographic roles. So, please, before yo ustart throwing bricks, check the windows.
Sharon may have made the decision to pull out of Gaza, but it was Condi who handed Gaza over to Hamas by insisting contrary to the Oslo scam (I mean Oslo accords) that Hamas be allowed to run in the PA elections. n nShe also threw a public fit over Israel building homes for Jews in Ramat Shlomo. She also drew a disgusting and inaccurate moral equivalence between segregation in the pre-1960's American south and Israeli checkpoints intended to keep enemy aliens from committing mass murder. n nHer record as national security adviser is nothing to brag about on any front, whether or not related to Israel.
ahad= in another blog I responded to your assertion that condi 'made disugsting and inaccurate morla equivalence". You mentioned the artcilt in wash, post of 2007. So,I went back and read the whole article and you are guilty of a sin that our enemies always do- quoting out of context. Those remarks were in a peace conference at annapolis and she spoke very eloquently about israel and bombs falling too. Did she give a nod to the Arabs/ absolutely ! but it was in ther context of a conference where peace was supposed ot be brokered. these remarks about equivalecy were never repeated and were never given in an official context. Contrast tat tO Obama and his cairo speech….a truly perfidious equivalency about the Holocaust and Jewish rule in Judea and smaria. nIn any case, it was the ISRAELI GOVERNMEMT that empowered Hamas as a counterbaalnce to the PLO in the 1980's.
Mistakes Israel made in the 1980s are do not excuse the US – at Condi's urging -forcing Israel to let Hamas run in the PA elections 20 years later, when we all knew a lot more about Hamas than we did in the 1980s. It was dumb and it was a violation of promises that the US made to Israel. Her objections to Jewish homes in Jerusalem also concern me. n nI agree with everything you said above about President Obama may he soon be out of office. It would take a lot more than Condi in the VP slot to get me to vote for Obama, but please stop trying to whitewash her horrendous record. n nLet's not overlook one other important item — perhaps the most important. "The heart of the ruler is like streams of water in the hand of Hashem." Obama has been a punishment, but if we do not do teshuva, there's no guaranty that the next president, whoever it may be, won't also set out to punish Israel, divide Jews, or marginalize religious people. Obama is nothing more than a tool, although one should not be unmindful that the wicked are chosen to deliver punishment and the righteous are chosen to deliver reward.
Well….IF Romney would make such a fatal error as picking Ms. Rice as his running mate, Romney DESERVES to lose the general election for the same reason Senator McCain DESERVED to lose the general election. In fact, I will go one step further, if I may…because the previous Republican Nominee Senator McCain, erred with his choice of Governor Palin to SUCH an extend, Romney is actually in the spot light for a sane Republican VP pick. The Palin error has highlighted the VP Republican appointment exponentially and will be used against Romney to the fullest extent, by everyone.r n I for one, WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY if he chooses Ms. Rice, under any set of circumstances. Such a selection puts into question Romney commitment to support Israel. If he were to do that, who might he choose for State, Ron Paul? How about a post for Pat Buchanan, too.r n Another outstanding Tobin Blog.
Elie-if you mean what you say, you are even dumber that your post suggests. Do you actually believe that a second Obama administration would be better for Israel??? Grow up!
Dick Chaney supports abortion rights and that didn't stop him from being VP.
Dick Chaney supports abortion rights and that didn't stop him from being Bush II's VP.
The lackluster list of current possible vp choices for Romney needs to be expanded to include people who have a track record of doing the right thing. We are in serious trouble here. Obama may have ignited a middle east war, which could engulf the region and the entire world. Since when does a community organizer qualify to be president of the US. Junior senators are not qualified just because they take clever positions of issues to be president or vice president. You think the economy will start producing good jobs out of thin air. Even if it could and would, most of the jobs would go to foreign nationals who can speak english, NOT. who respect Americans, not. who would treat American workers with respect, NOT.r nWake up LAME DUCKS.
Romney's just yanking the media chain on this one….
Romney doesn't have much Jewish appeal, in the abstract. Not as anything which relates to purely Jewish issues. He's simply a blank slate and not Obama. But then again you could be Alex Jones and not be as bad as Obama.
If you mean she is outside his comfort zone because of her disastrous mistakes in the past -regarding Israel, the disputed territories, Hamas, Gaza and Lebanon, then all I can say is, GOOD! If you are saying something else, please explain what puts her outside of Romney's comfort zone.
I'm saying that his comfort zone is rich white guys. Very rich. Very white. Very very rich. Is that unfair?
and rich white guys who have actually accomplished something in theri lives…..rather than full tgiem politicians who have no clue what the real world is all about! Please, let's have more of these rich,white guys!
Let's call it differently fair. Also differently accurate and differently intelligent. Your posts have been better when you aim for something besides pure snark without content.
I"m sorry I don't begrudge successful men success but I disagree with you guys that capitalism advances first and foremost through the entrepreneurial efforts of holders of capital rather than through, generally, the efforts of what might still be called "skilled labor"–that the subordination of the technical and intellectual contributions of employees to the entrepreneurial prerequisites of ownership class capital reflects the moral excellence of "creators of wealth." The position–and if you don't buy into it then the correlatives will also be rejected–is that as you move up the food chain of laborers, workers, engineers, technicians, managers, executives at at AMC or a Domnoes Pizza or a whatever, the least exciting work is done by the money managers with MBAs at the top of the pyramid. That the financial management of the market for a product is less vital than the value built into the product by labor. That a Romney can get $100,000 year to year as a "passive" stakeholder from Bain or that the interest on his interest can accumulate $25 million for him via coupon clipping is an indicator of something awry not health.
well, besht2003, at least you have shown your true colors- marxist prattle at its best. Without capital- there are no workers- without capital, there are no wages to be paid, without capital, nothing happens. You may not like the outsize amount of money ame by capitalists but the proof is staring you in the face: The United States still is the most advanced country in the world and , if we'd listen to marxists like yourself, we'd end up like that Eden of prosperity- Communist Russia.
Not Marxist and not prattle. The Bundists were social democratic libertarians–it doesn't end up in the same place. Marx, via the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ends up in the Gulag. Social democrats have a lot of other spaces to wander. But yeah, imo, the actual "prattle" is to misunderstand the true relation between workers and bosses, labor and capital. Without workers the bosses don't even have capital–they just possess electronic ones and zeroes and pretty pieces of paper with local flora, fauna and politicoes on it. Romney redistributed wealth–whether in aggregate he created any is not a question just asked by commies. And in the U.S. a lot of that wealth is mediated through administrative institutions no longer precisely capital, no longer precisely government. But indeterminate hybrids. Crony capitalism, for example, takes two to tango and tango they do.
The bundists were social, secular and virulently anti-religious socialist libertarians, who side with the left against Israel and who are dying out because their program has proven irrelevant, but Jewishly and economically.