Count me among the many who were wowed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s brilliant speech at the Republican National Convention last night. She didn’t just add a note of foreign policy gravitas to a convention that served up a seemingly endless roster of mid-level GOP figures riffing on President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” gaffe. Rice’s address was as much about belief in the idea of America as it was about contemporary political disputes. She left the podium not only having won the hearts of the audience with her recollection of her own rise from a childhood in the segregated south to the heights of power but left a lot of her listeners wondering whether she was interested in a future run at the presidency and making comparisons to other great convention speeches in the past that were stepping-stones to the White House.
However, those so intoxicated by her rhetorical achievement that they are now pondering Rice’s future need to take a deep breath. It was a great speech and Rice has shown she can be a formidable surrogate for Mitt Romney or anyone else she chooses to support. But Rice is never going to be a viable presidential candidate. Nor is she likely to assume any post in a Romney administration. I can’t answer the question on so many tongues this morning about what it is that Condi Rice wants. Only she can do that. But a logical analysis of her prospects requires us to accept that whatever it is she aspires to, high political office isn’t likely to be in her future.
Rice is an exceptional human being and when stacked up against the vast majority of politicians, she looks like she belongs in a higher league than the one in which garden variety governors, senators and members of Congress play. But she has never run for political office and those who believe she could parachute into a tough GOP presidential nomination fight are underestimating the difficulty of such a feat. She could certainly raise the money for such a race but it is difficult to imagine her spending 2015 (assuming Romney doesn’t win this fall) beating the bushes at Iowa county fairs three summers from now.
But even if she was willing to give up her comfortable life at Stanford University and other celebrity perks, like her new membership at the Augusta National Golf Club, as long as Rice is pro-choice on abortion, she has no chance of winning a Republican presidential nomination. This is something that was pointed out last month during the brief unrealistic boomlet seeking to promote her as a possible vice presidential nominee. Rice isn’t the only prominent Republican who supports abortion but the vast majority of those who vote in primaries are very much on the other side. It’s a handicap that would make a presidential quest on her part a pipe dream, especially when a 2016 race would probably include pro-life GOP stars like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.
That’s a fact that Mitt Romney understood when he started on his seven-year-old quest for the presidency and one that others who fell by the wayside, like Rudolph Giuliani, would have to learn the hard way. Rice is too smart not to know this, so I can’t imagine her even trying.
As for lesser posts, it’s equally hard to see where she would fit in a future Romney administration. Having been secretary of state, it’s impossible to imagine she would take a lower level cabinet post or foreign policy job. Unless she wants another shot at running the State Department, which seems unlikely to me, she’s overqualified for any other position.
Nor do I find the speculation about her running for office in California very convincing. Having seen impressive Republican women like Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman fall short in that deep blue state, it’s hard to see why Rice would do any better.
The Republican Convention has served up an impressive slate of women speakers. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who had the difficult task of following Rice, was one. But though she may not have been as dazzling as Rice, she has a brighter political future simply because she fits into the mainstream of her party on abortion and other social issues.
Hard as it is for some pundits to admit, a good speech is sometimes just a stepping-stone to nothing other than opportunities to give other good speeches. While I was no fan of many of her policies at the State Department, Rice is a star and the Republicans are lucky to have her on their side. But it’s difficult to see any realistic scenario in which she can be said to have a political future.
I think Condi would turn down State, although she is great at it, it is a tiring job that wears your soul out. n nHer zip code point about education along with some other posts I've seen about her during the W years to me indicates the Secretary of Education would be a possibility. That agency is ripe for change and she could lead it thru a major reform. n nI agree that Condi would not run for president, but I think a future VP slot is very much a possibility. It was an amazing speech last night, we really need her to be out in the limelight.
To the contrary, I believe that she stunk pretty bad at state, although with such a rotten State Department, the smell must envelope anyone near it. The deranged fiasco of the Gaza withdrawal with no one but the EU patrolling the Philidelphi corridor, can't be her entire blame. However, she was part of it.
She certainly displays many of the fashionable misconceptions and prejudices about Israel. Her comparison of the security checkpoints to the segregated facilites of her youth was beyond disgusting.
And yet, she's seen them both, so the comparison is hers to make. Which will likely send my rep score even lower. I'm not anti Israel, I just don't praise their every action and deed fulsomely. True friends should not do that, anyway.
Not really. She has seen Israel on a superficial level, as little more than a tourist. Let her experience it as the Israelis do. Let her see the day to day interaction between Arabs and Jews. Let her see them treated in the same Israeli hospitals, treated by Jewish and Arab doctors. Let her worry about whether she, or her friends, will come home in one piece or blown to pieces after a simple trip to the grocery store. Until then, I reserve the right to call her comparison a facile and ignorant one, embodying the vile, fashionable prejudices and myths about Israel and superimposing America's racial problems into an inappropriate context. n nTrue friends should not stand by when their friends are defamed by the ignornant and self-righteous, either.
I'm not sure. Condi Rice seems to be heavily involved in US – Israeli talks (note that's from an Australian perspective) – I would think that she'd have better perspective than a tourist. n nYour comment on true friends I agree with, though. n nAlso, I'm thinking she would make a better candidate for President than what you have now. Again, it's not like I get a vote anyway. n nGood luck with the elections.
"I'm thinking she would make a better candidate for President than what you have now." nIf you mean better than we have as president now, I agree. If you mean better than Gov. Romney, try not to feel too bad — I doubt that I could reach an informed opinion about your country's elections. n n"Good luck with the elections." nThank you. We are going to need it.
also she is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan, She and Bush forced Musharaff to bring back Bhutto from exile and she was assassinated causing his gov't to fall. We lost a good ally in Musharaff and got total chaos in return. I cannot think of a good thing to say about her
"Rice isn’t the only prominent Republican who supports abortion"??? Who says that she "supports" abortion? Is ink so precious that you cannot say it correctly by adding the word "CHOICE"? Likewise, the anti-abortion religious fanatics prefer calling themselves "pro life". Actually, they are simply ANTI abortion by anybody – hence the adjective 'fanatic'. Actually, fanaticism is killing the GOP. There are important non-religious issues that should be front and center. Religious issues should, constitutionally, not be considered at any time. If any person or group can call themselves by any name, no matter how inaccurate, then please refer to me as the Emperor of Japan – and bow down when you say it, or off with your head.
What got you so bent out of shape? You fault Tobin for NOT using the self-serving monikers of the "pro choice" and "pro life" movements? Or are you really saying that "pro choice" is 100% accurate but "pro life" is 100% false? Both of these labels are party true and partly false, and 100% policitcal in their purpose. For Tobin to get beyond that is hardly a sin–really a virtue. Plus, he really wasn't engaging in the substantive argument, just making a point about the primary process.
I actually was not very 'bent out of shape', but now that you bring it up, "pro choice" is 100% accurate and "pro life" pretty close to 100% false. I say false because of the incitement to violence that these groups employ. And violence does indeed too frequently result from their extremist rhetoric. They should tone down their arguments to reasonable discourse and keep it out of the political realm.
But there's nothing violent about dismembering a fetus in utero because the mother has decided that gving birth would be inconvenient? n nDon't give me distractions about rape, incest or danger to the mother's life; the first two are a small percentage of US abortions and the third is an abortion I would support. But the "pro choice" movement has opposed any limits on elective abortion, under any circumstances.
By "These groups" you must mean the most extreme anti-abortion groups. But "these groups" is not the same as GOP primary voters. They do not shoot or bomb people. Tobin was talking primary voters, not the handful of nutjobs who commit felonies. So, your point is unfair or irrelevant or both. n nAnd "pro choice" is not 100% accurate, because it implies the only options are 100% freedom regarding abortion in all respects, or 100% lack of freedom regarding abortion in all respects. That is demonstrably untrue, and I assume you are smart enough not to have me explain it. n nThat said, there is some truth to the "pro choice" moniker, as there is to the "pro life" one. For you to say otherwise by pointing out that a tiny number of wackos break the law is like me saying every person who claims to be "pro choice" supports that crazy Princeton professor who believes in eugenic killing in the first year of life. n n n n"Pro
Neoconservatives love her because neocons are obsessed with white hate and worship and adore anyone who isn't a white, Christian American, especially if they are foreign born (yeah immigrants!). n nRice is not conservative at all……..
Ms. Rice is no leader and, frankly, other than being a close personal friend of Mr. Bush with whom he talked football, she has little to show in the way of achievements. n nIn addition, she is single having no children nor ever having a husband. Mothers cannot identify with her, nor can wives. It's hard to imagine many men identifying with her. n nShe has a story to tell, but then so do most minorities who are as old as she is. She came of age in horrible conditions when every minority had to live through prejudice and discrimination. That's not to minimize it, but it doesn't make her unique. (Herman Cain has the same story.) n nShe has a lovely resume, but she has few accomplishments to support a presidential bid. On this post, Jonathan has it right.
Why does everybody need to run for President? Can we just say, "Great Job, Ms. Rice. You should be an inspiration to every person in American (men, too!).
I'm a man. I "identify" with Condoleeza Rice. So does my wife. n nWe are all talking about possible conservative 2016 candidates because, in our hearts, we are appalled that the GOP has given us Mitt Romney to run against Obama! From what I saw and heard from Condi Wednesday night, she could wipe the floor with Barack Obama, and do it WITH CLASS! But thanks to the Republican Party, we have Mitt. Unbelievable.
Great. The woman who sold out our country's commitment to Israel by forcing them to let Hamas run in the PA elections, in clear violation of the Oslo accords. The woman who said that checkpoints to keep people from blowing up civilians is no differnent than separate drinknig fountains based on skin color. The woman who encouraged Israel to throw Jews out of their homes in return for more worthless promises, that were quickly repudiated by the next US president. The woman who believes that Jews should not be able to buy land and build homes if the neighbors are willing to murder in order to stop them. n nYou and I have very different ideas of class. nWhatever your views on Mitt, he has to be better than our current president.