Speculation that Governor Romney will choose Condoleezza Rice as his running mate is all the rage right now in Washington and among political reporters. Dr. Rice evidently gave a bang-up speech in Park City at a closed-door fundraising retreat. Rice is poised and articulate; a huge contrast to Vice President Joe Biden, who often lacks both qualities. She also adds diversity to the ticket, not only in terms of race and gender, but also in terms of life story; she has perhaps the most compelling life story next to that of President Obama himself.
Rice also has much experience at the senior levels of government, serving both as George W. Bush’s national security advisor and also his second term secretary of state. Whether Rice would bring electoral benefit is an open question, especially because she has not held elective office and it is questionable, therefore, whether Californians would consider her native enough to call their own simply based on her tenure at Stanford. Nevertheless, she has a demonstrated ability to charm the press, and that is a quality that should not be dismissed. Like Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, she used it to great effect during the internecine wars that plagued the George W. Bush administration.
Rice’s record should raise various questions about her suitability to be vice president. As national security advisor, she presided over one of the most chaotic National Security Councils in recent memory. The job of the National Security Council (NSC) is first to coordinate policy between various bureaucracies and second to define policy and enforce decisions when disputes occur within the administration. Rice was a poor administrator. The meetings she chaired ran like college seminars and seldom reached a conclusion. This led to policy chaos and polarization, especially during the Iraq conflict. Many of her colleagues—on both sides of the philosophical debate—speculated that she was hesitant to present the president with decision memos until she could divine his thoughts on an issue. Hence, she let basic issues like pre-war planning and questions about whether the Iraq campaign was simply to unseat Saddam or whether the U.S. would rebuild Iraq’s government slip until just weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
While Rice will be great at advocating for Romney’s record, behind the scenes she may once again sow the seeds of rebellion. Bush administration officials used to joke that Rice’s personnel picks represented 2004 Democratic challenger John Kerry’s farm team. She appointed a number of officials—Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann, and Rand Beers, to name just a few—who may be very competent in their fields of expertise—but used the credibility gained from their perch in the Old Executive Office Building to work against the Bush agenda both privately and then publicly, often directly on behalf of Kerry.
So, Rice was not a great administrator, but the job of the vice president is not to run bureaucracy, so perhaps Romney will forgive her. He should, however, worry about her instincts given her lead on the North Korea issue. In the waning days of the Bush administration, with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars going poorly, Rice was desperate to leave Bush with a foreign policy legacy about which he could brag. Somewhat arbitrarily, she chose North Korea to be that issue, and almost single handedly pushed reconciliation with North Korea through the bureaucracy, regardless of North Korean behavior. For example, she led the drive to lift North Korea’s state sponsor of terror designation, even though, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, Pyongyang was still aiding the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Hezbollah in Lebanon (where North Korean engineers have helped Hezbollah build their network of underground tunnels and arms caches). Like Madeleine Albright before her, Rice’s outreach to the Dear Leader was poorly conceived and motivated, and did little but to cede America’s strategic leverage and make North Korea more dangerous.
This election will not be about foreign policy. The repairs Romney will need to make to the American economy and defense must begin on day one. Rice is a talented individual, and her voice as a senior statesman is one that should be listened to, but her track record of management, while at the National Security Council, and her policy decisions while secretary of state are both topics which she has never adequately addressed.
Ha! Ha! Ha! National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed no-one "could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile" after we had 9-11. But the French & FBI had suggested precisely that. But she's part of that infamous crew- Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about Iraq -"Stuff happens!" or CIA Director George Tenet, "It's a Slam Dunk." Calm Connie's hair should have been on fire imagining how terrorists might strike- too conventional, bookish, and usually one step behind.
A bad, bad, bad choice. I remember her remarkably terrible work with Ariel Sharon in surrendering Gaza. For that she cannot be forgiven. Her choice for VP would not induce me to vote for Obama. It could make election day a not very important day. Other things to do may just use up the entire day's time.
there seems to be a concerted effort to blacken Condi's name- and you add to it. When did she ever force Sharon to do anything? let aslone give back gaza. This is a preposterous notion. and you would be making a grievous and fatal mistake when you sit out this election.
She pushed the naive idea that Hamas ought to be treated as a proper political party, when it has no respect for the forms of law, much less the western notion of democratic rule. The administration was stunned when Hamas won, so out of touch they were. Her record with regard to the Russians was not much better, not withstanding this is her area of academic expertise.
hindsight is great !! Did you even know that it was the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT who supported Hamas in the eighties? Certainly, a mistake in retrospect (maybe not even that) but reralize that it is easy for armchair critics to opine after the fasct with 20/20 hindsight.
So that makes it okay for Condi to do so 20 years later, after 20 years of experience told us exactly what Hamas was, and showed how the optimism of the 1980s was misplaced? And to do so in spite of our promises to Israel, in violation of the Oslo Scam? n nTo put it another way, Condi had the advantage of Israel's hindsight and failed to use it. And refused to let Israel use it. She bet Jewish lives on her own gamble on Hamas, even though all the evidence pointed to the gamble being a dumb one. n nResponsible people invested in GM in the 1980's; that's no reason you would have been irreponsible to invest someone else's money in GM in January 2009.
Rice, next to Clinton has got to be among the most anti-Israel Secretaries of State in modern history. After the forcible uprooting of thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza, August 2005, Rice said Gaza was only the beginning. n nWere you paying attention to her constant berating of Israel during the Bush years? Before you call me a leftist, I am a life-long Republican who voted for self-professed Christian conservative George W. Bush in 2000. After Bush and Rice urged Israel (against Israeli protests) to include Hamas in the 2006 elections and the Palestinians elected Hamas: "Bush, Rice say Palestinian elections show "power of democracy." n n"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered congratulations to President Abbas and the Palestinian people, and said, "Whenever you have 80 percent of the Palestinian people turn out in a free and fair election, one that is free of violence, it has to be a cause for hope." n nIn her videoconference remarks to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she said the Palestinians "have apparently voted for change but we believe that their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged." n nColumnist Don Feder wrote: "Speaking at a 2005 dinner marking the end of Ramadan, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said Mohammedanism was the "religion of love and peace.” For Condi, being peaceful wasn’t enough. Islam had to be warm and cuddly too. “We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam,” Rice absurdly remarked. “We’ve seen it in many ways” – including in glorious Technicolor, in the video of the decapitation of Daniel Pearl.
your tirade is so over the top! "among the most anti-Israeli Secretaries of State" How old are you? Do you even know Allen Foster Dulles? Do you know the name Rogers? How about Allbright? Condi wasn't even close to being "anti-Israeli". yes, the Bush administration pursued the "democaracy route' in the Middle east -of which the Iraq war was one. It many have been a trip to nowhere and a strategic mistake. but it was never intended to be "anti-israeli". And how about the Israelis themselves? Sharon was Prime minister- for pete's sake- when we left gaza. Rabin a'h was prime minister when the Oslo accords were signed.Absolutely, in retrospect, all of these steps may have been a big mistake, but most of these steps were made in Israel. Unlike Obama- whose administration started with the abject, obsequious Cairo speech- the Bush administration supported Israel and its government fully diplomatically.
Wrong, Michaelmas, Vandag is right. Further she's a reminder of what many swing voters want to forget about! She does harm and the first duty in picking a VP candidate is to do none! n nPick Marco Rubio! He's eloquent, appeals to both Hispanics and Anglos and has a compelling personal story.
He IS right about one thing, in my opinion. As bad as Condi is, sitting back to let Obama have a second term would be even worse.
In what resepct is vandag right? Every fact quoted has ben repudiated. I am not saying she should be VP candidate- I, too, want FRubio but one has to be fair to Condi. She and George Bush were eons better for Israel that the present administration.
It was well known in pro-Israel circles that Rice was an anti-Israel force in the Bush administration. She insisted on Hamas's inclusion in the West Bank-Gaza elections and put all kinds of time limitations on the Lebanon action. It is better to dispense with her and, as The Scum puts it, move on. Marco Rubio is a qualified candidate, pro-Israel and an eloquent speaker who can bring support to the ticket. Therefore he's the best choice.
I agree with you fully that Rubio is a better choice. However, I do not recall any such talk about Condi in the years of the Bush administration. The inclusion of Hamas may or may not hve been a mistake- we'll see.
" I do not recall any such talk about Condi in the years of the Bush administration." n nYou must not have been listening! Just read the other comments if you don't think I'm credible. n nAs Bert Lancaster said playing Judge Ernst Janning in "Judgement at Nurenberg," "must we go through all that again!?"
Romney should choose Rice if he wants the campaign to highlight the Bush years foreign policy. But since OF COURSE HE DOESN'T WANT THAT, he will certainly not choose Rice.
A bad, bad, bad, bad choice! Why should Romney want a relic of the discredited Bush Foreign policy to represent him? She would become nothing more than a target for Obama to blast away at in order to distract voters from his own utterly disastrous foreign policy failures. I can only second what the first comment exclaims, that her tirades against Israel's leaders make her an unforgivable choice for VP.
Can you substantiate your comment "tirades against Israel's leaders"? i don't remember anything like this and it is a disservice to her and the Bush administration who were great friends of Israel….
I went on a computer search to attempt to oblige you, and spent more time searching than I had time to spare. I didn't locate that reference to a "tirade" which I do recall, but I invite you to read an article by Caroline Glick written in May, 2007 which discusses the misguided approach of Rice in the conduct of her office. You can find it on Caroline Glick.com n
There is no doubt that she has made some serious mistakes like the rest of us. As a black and a woman she will bring in votes from minority groups. As a VP candidate her task is to win support in the election. On balance I think that she would be a good choice.
Let us not forget Rice's totally perverse comparison of the Arab-Israel conflict with the civil rights struggles of her native Alabama in the 1950s and 60s along with her engineering the electoral victory of Hamas in Gaza. For those hoping Obama's defeat will signal a new day in US-Israeli relationships, a Rice vice-presidency along with the permanent bureaucracy at Foggy Bottom could prolong Washington's policy of both isolating Israel and embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.
Can you substantiate your comments about Condi comparing the black struggle with the Arab-Israeli conflict ? The only political person I know who did that was Obama- comparing the Palestinians to the "poor jews of the Holocaust".
I do remember it. I don't have time to research it, but I do remember comments along those lines late in the Bush administration. I was shocked and disturbed by her comments. Romney should not pick her. She will add very little to the ticket. She's not going to take a large number of black votes from Obama, I suspect. The black community will respond better to a demagogue like Obama.
We need to give Sarah Palin a second chance. Since the last time she has read books, and met people. n nEveryone who supported Sarah last time needs to support her again this time. She will be an even stronger candidate, and she'll attract the women's vote, and also the Hockey Mom vote, and that's big. n nThen, she'll be ready to run for President. If you liked Sarah Palin before, you'll like her again now. There never was any doubt as to her qualifications.
That means she empathizes, not that the situations are analogous. I empathize too, but I wouldn't give up one square foot of Israel. n
Nice to see a little objectivity here for a change. Rice is smart to keep out of this race; even if Romney won, I doubt that she wants to cap her career as his VP. Rice isn't/wasn't terrible, she's undoubtedly bright, but her treatment of Israel and the Palestinian issue was nothing pro-Israel Republicans can brag about. Annapolis, anyone? Those who reflexively slam President Obama should remember how less than wonderful the Bush administration was, on this and other issues.
Condi would be a terrible choice. Not only does it permit Obama to run against Bush all over again, her foreign policy record is mixed at best, plus she is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage. The Republican base, the conservative base, the Tea Party base (with numerous overlaps) would desert the ticket if she was on it. On top of this, conservatives are already more than a little suspicious about whether Mitt is a real conservative. Putting a RINO like Condi on the ticket would confirm to most of us that he's a RINO also. We will not vote for such a candidate.
"…she has perhaps the most compelling life story next to that of President Obama himself." n nI believe Rice's life story is true whereas Obama's is, in a great many details, fictionalized. In fact, Obama is a creation of his own imagination – unreal, unreliable, and unrepentant. n nRice would not be a good choice for the reasons already states by several commenters.
i am acentrist or probably more correctly a right of center centrist who values commentary magazine. i have been uncertain likemany otherindependent voters howi would vote. this november. but if condi rice were to be on the ticket i would gladly and proudly voterepublican no matter what the angry guns of the far right say against ms. rice
I was a volunteer for the Governor in the last primary. I believe he has most of the essential skills and values our republic needs. What he glaringly lacks however is what only Alan West can bring – a clear understanding of our enemy and the cred to clean out the Pentagon. Condie's a joke. Her CV was the world's best Kremlin expert yet with her advice W came back saying he saw Putin as a "friend" – hilarious and disturbing.
One of her positives is that she will be liked by the press. What a joke.
The year was 2006. Hezbollah had murdered four Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border. Israel's response sparked a brief war against the Iranian proxies, resulting in the destruction of most of the Hezbollah rocket launching capability and the death of about half the core fighters. n nThen Condi Rice swooped in and negotiated a "peace deal" in which the Israelis had to stop winning and Hezbollah got to keep its occupation of Lebanon. Now, Hezbollah, rearmed by Iran, is ready for Round Two. n nRice traded Israel's security for a brief, pointless peace deal that left Israel in greater danger than before. I would say Rice is no friend of Israel's and would be a bad choice for VP, and a horrible choice for President which is what she would be if anything happens to her boss.
of all the potential VP choices, she is the worst. When we have allen west and marco rubio available, we don't need others.
viewing the situation from the other side of the Pond, imho Congressman Allan West would appear to be a dream choice.
To beat Obama by playing his game-racial card is very silly of Romney.