I don’t think Rice has much credibility in trying to play the patriotism card. She’s pretty much been squatting and pissing on the US Constitution for the last 8 years.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Alan Keyes would be only a slightly worse choice for VP than Pee Wee Herman.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why they might as well put him on the ticket. There’s no danger of him actually becoming VP…
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
There’s a joke that asks how do you know how many Black Republicans there are? You go to the Republican Convention and count them.
Ah, the old moving of the goal posts. Your original point had to do with high office—THE highest office. Now you seek to count the masses.
Republicans might appoint a black person to a high office. But what do they do outside of the spotlight? This article compares the Democratic and Republican record on judicial appointments. George H.W. Bush, for example, appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court - and didn’t nominate a single other black judge for any appellate court appointment. Appointing one person from a minority group to a prominent post and then ignoring everyone else from that group is pretty much the definition of tokenism.
[/QUOTE]
Tokenism is one way to view it. But is this now about G.H.W. Bush or the republican party as a whole. And why would you look to 41 and not 43? Please make up your mind. As far as the current republican party let’s just look at a few people that show you to be wrong. I’ll use women and ethnic minorities, as they both go to your original point. They are all cabinet members or close advisors or Appeals Court Judges:
Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice
Christine Todd Whitman
Susan Schwab
Mary Peters
Harriet Miers
Rod Paige
Margaret Spellings
Elaine Chao
Carlos Guitierrez
Ann Veneman
Gale Norton
Alberto Gonzalez
Mel Martinez
Mary Peters
Norman Mineta
Alphonso Jackson
Karen Hughes
Michael Powell
Meghan O’Sullivan
Zalmay Khalilzad
Dana Perino
Court of Appeals
Janice Rogers Brown
Jerome Holmes
Sandra Ikuta
Kimberly Moore
Debra Liviingston
Jennifer Elrod
Gene Pratter (nominated)
Catherine Haynes (nominated)
Dear Sen. McCain: Please, oh please, choose Condi as your running mate.
She’s got a proven record of incompetence as National Security Advisor and as Secretary of State. What was that great line of hers about “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” when lots of people were being killed somewhere? And that ‘new Middle East’ is so in evidence today. Yep, that’s a winner.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Someone doing an unfathomably shitty job getting a promotion- let’s hope not.
[/QUOTE]
Happened for her at least once, why not again?
-Joe
[QUOTE=Plan B]
Sorry if it came across that way. I actuallly have a lot of respect for her. I was asking if it might be seen as tokenism and therefore hurt the ticket.
[/QUOTE]
Rice is a lesbian. That would hurt the ticket. It shouldn’t, but it would.
Has that ever been confirmed? It makes sense, but I’ve never heard it for sure from anyone.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
Has that ever been confirmed? It makes sense, but I’ve never heard it for sure from anyone.
[/QUOTE]
Never confirmed, never refuted, never actually denied AFAIK, never quite dies down; do a Google search on “Condoleeza Rice lesbian” and see what you get.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Rice is a lesbian. That would hurt the ticket. It shouldn’t, but it would.
[/QUOTE]
I have always thought that Rice and W were an item. She did call him her “husband” once.
[QUOTE=panache45]
But what exactly has she accomplished in those positions?
[/QUOTE]
Why, she’s overseen the single worst attack on US soil as National Security Advisor, and overseen the single worst decline in US prestige abroad as Secretary of State. 0 for 2!
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I have always thought that Rice and W were an item. She did call him her “husband” once.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Condi would be an impressive vice presidential candidate - for someone else.
[/quote]
It’s been asked before, but I’ll ask again. Why? What has she done that is “impressive”. Granted she held two high profile positions in this administration, but as far as actual accomplishments, what is there? Iraq? Middle East peace? Violations of FISA while she was National Security Advisor?
I understand her whole schtick of “Transformational Democracy”, but that’s pretty much just the continuation of US policy for the last few decades. Support democracies. Reject authoritarianism (unless they have a lot of oil or can help us some other way). I don’t see any of her work in the Israel/Palestianian problem having any long term success (which I wouldn’t hold against her, kudos for her trying though).
I just don’t see the “impressive” part. Please, educate me.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I have always thought that Rice and W were an item. She did call him her “husband” once.
[/QUOTE]
I think you can take that in the sense that she’s “married to her job.” For all his failings, I do believe W is faithful to his wife.
Try googling Condi’s name along with the name, “Randy Bean”. She’s Rice’s reputed long term companion who travels with her and is officially her “best friend,” but (I hear from someone in the know in the State Department) is Condi’s SO of like 25 years. The press, for whatever reason, lets it remain quiet. I think it’s probably the number one reason she will not consider (or ever be asked) to be on the GOP ticket, though. The press will only keep a secret so far.
Well, people like me, who’d like to see Dr. Rice executed, weren’t going to vote for McCain anyway. But I think it’d look like a promise of continuing the Bush administration, and most of the country has had enough of that.
And when the candidate for President is in his 70s, the choice of who’ll be a heartbeat away from the office is pretty important.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think you can take that in the sense that she’s “married to her job.” For all his failings, I do believe W is faithful to his wife.
[/QUOTE]
One never knows. I could believe or not believe it. There has been for some time a rumor that W will divorce Laura when he leaves office and that the settlement is already agreed to. Nothing in the mainstream media so it should be taken with several grains of salt.
That’s what I thought–she had kept it more or less “deniable”, but hadn’t really denied it. That’s fine as SoS or NSA, but as the VP nom? Not gonna fly.
That’s not even the reason she won’t get it, though. Obama is going to do everything he can to nail McCain to Bush; putting Rice on the ticket would be like holding the nails for him.
So Magellon, your response to the claim that Republicans appoint very few black people to political offices is to provide a list of people they’ve appointed to political office? Very few of whom are black?
Are you sure you understand how debating works?
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
It’s been asked before, but I’ll ask again. Why? What has she done that is “impressive”. Granted she held two high profile positions in this administration, but as far as actual accomplishments, what is there? Iraq? Middle East peace? Violations of FISA while she was National Security Advisor?
[/QUOTE]
Well, since the vice-president does next to nothing, she’d be perfect for the job. The only problem would be if McCain has a heart attack or something and kicks the bucket, then what is she going to do? Call in Dick Cheney?
[QUOTE=guizot]
Well, since the vice-president does next to nothing, she’d be perfect for the job. The only problem would be if McCain has a heart attack or something and kicks the bucket, then what is she going to do? Call in Dick Cheney?
[/QUOTE]
She’d never do that. She doesn’t like Dick.
So, is Condi the republican answer to Obama?