Colin Powell was almost always a “political” officer, and has a long history of being in diplomatic “gotta get along to get things done” decision-making positions, long before he became Sec. State. Rice, unfortunately, while extremely smart, and very well qualified on the basics, has significantly less experience in the “line of fire”. Even as Provost, she had a fairly well defined role, with little of the of the daily positional manuevering that a Veep has to face. To date, she’s mostly been in an advisory role, on the outside of the manuevering, protected from attack. As Veep, she’d have to be in the thick of things, with most of her protection gone. Only her ability to manuever will be able to protect her. That’s a dance she’s relatively new to, while Powell has been dancing that dance for a couple of decades now.
Could she do it? Probably. Would she be a good choice? Probably. Would I pick her over Powell? Nope.
Powell / Rice in '08? Damn Straight, they’d have my vote.
zuma: The republican party is not that stupid. Sure, they’ll throw them a few bones here and there to keep them in line, they’ll put a few anti-abortion lines into the party platform, but who was the last presidential candidate who really took this seriously?
I gotta go with minty on this one: George W. Bush. At least, he’s the one who signed an executive order prohibiting the allocation of U.S. funds to international family planning groups who support abortion, either by performing the procedure, or offering abortion counseling or lobbying governments abroad. Reagan initiated this policy, Clinton revoked it in 1993, and Bush II reinstated it immediately after taking office. This isn’t just cosmetic: this has had a severe impact on family-planning aid services worldwide. I don’t think this jibes with your assertion that Republicans don’t really “take this seriously.”
Also, the Republican platform on “family-values” issues sounds like a good deal more than the lip service you describe:
Reading that, it’s hard for me to believe that the Republicans are really going to think it squares with their professed values to run a candidate who’s openly pro-choice and who might be suspected of being a lesbian. (I agree, though, that there’s nothing in the platform that argues against having a black and/or female candidate; I have no idea how many individual Republicans are still “traditionally conservative” enough to oppose someone like Rice on those grounds.)
I think tomndebb is right that if Republicans in general don’t actually support the hard-right Christian-Coalition views on these issues, they should try to get them removed from the party’s official positions. It will be interesting to see whether the religious right has really lost a lot of political capital post-9/11, as Sam suggests, and if so, whether that will be reflected in the platform in 2002 or 2004.
ruff-ruff. the christian coalition gnaws on this bone. This is definitelyu not taking the issue seriously. As dumb as bush jr. is,he’s smart enough to placate the religious right while burying the issue.
zuma, this is kind of starting to look like denial on your part. Do you also think that
-
the Administration’s recent support for the re-evaluation of an overturned Ohio law restricting abortions,
-
as well as its recent proposals to make “unborn children” individually eligible for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage,
-
as well as its nomination of Judge Pickering (one of the drafters of the original anti-abortion plank in the current Republican platform) to the Fifth Circuit,
are evidence that Bush and his administration are not taking this issue seriously? I can’t agree with you either that Bush is particularly dumb or that he’s not serious about attempting to change the legal status of the right to choose an abortion in this country.
I totally disagree with Bush’s policy. World-wide population control is a vital issue.
Still, I will ask for a cite regarding the degree of harm done by this wrong-headed policy. How severe wast?
(No doubt groups whose funding was cut will have complained; I’m hoping for a real measure of magnitude of impact.)
A vice-president named “Condoleezza” would join the illustrious company of such vibrant American characters as Elbridge Gerry (Madison’s), Schuyler Colfax (Grant’s), Alben Barkley (Truman’s), and the unforgettable Spiro T. Agnew. And let’s not forget Millard Fillmore (who succeded Z. Taylor), and Hannibal “The Animal” Hamlin (Lincoln’s first).
Joking aside, “Rice” is a right proper name for a world leader, in that it is punchy and dignified.
And we’d get along well with China & Japan. <<Smack!>>:o
I would agree today that it’s hard for Republicans to stray away from ‘Christian Values’, because they would then lose a lot of support in some crucial swing states. However, one thing to remember about Rice is that she would probably bring in a lot of black and female votes, which could well be seen as offsetting any losses to the Christian right.
But it’s also important to remember that 6 years is a LONG, LONG time in politics. Anything could happen. Bush could lose in 2004, Rice could be eased out of the White House if she turns out to disagree with the President on any number of issues, a newer, better candidate could emerge from the Republican party, etc.
I also agree that Rice is untested in the meat grinder of hardball politics. Will she be able to withstand the pressure? An awful lot of very good candidates on both the right and left have either quit in disgust or have been smeared enough by the process that they became irrelevant. Only time will tell. But Democrats are going to have a real hard time playing hardball with her - trying to attack a black, possibly gay female could alienate an awful lot of traditionally Democratic bases of support. Another reason why the Republicans would love to field her as a candidate.
All I can say is that right now, Condi Rice has to be considered one of the top contenders for the Republican mantle in 2008. And that would be a great thing for the Republicans, and a very difficult problem for the Democrats.
Finally, has anyone else noticed that Rice has emerged as one of the leading spokespeople for this administration? Every Sunday she seems to land on one political show or another. Clearly, she has the support and trust of Bush.
Excuse the digression; I don’t mean to hijack this into a discussion of Bush and abortion policy, but I was asked for a cite.
december: *“George W. Bush … signed an executive order prohibiting the allocation of U.S. funds to international family planning groups who support abortion, either by performing the procedure, or offering abortion counseling or lobbying governments abroad. Reagan initiated this policy, Clinton revoked it in 1993, and Bush II reinstated it immediately after taking office.”
Still, I will ask for a cite regarding the degree of harm done by this wrong-headed policy. How severe wast?
(No doubt groups whose funding was cut will have complained; I’m hoping for a real measure of magnitude of impact.)*
I don’t think any comprehensive study has been done: this article at Population Action International says that research is needed to determine the full consequences of this “global gag rule” or “Mexico City Policy”, as it is known. They cite a 2001 article in Science that assesses the research done on it in the Reagan-Bush I era; I also found a recent article, “The Sound of Silence” from the American Prospect, discussing later testimony on the subject. It’s clear that whatever the US decides about international family planning aid is a big deal; we are still the largest single donor of family-planning funds to developing countries, and our funding accounts for more than one-third of grants worldwide.
According to the Science article, advocates of the Mexico City Policy claim that it hasn’t had a significant negative impact because only very few NGOs receiving aid for family planning refused to comply with it. However, opponents argue (rightly, IMHO) that this doesn’t mean that the policy doesn’t interfere with their family-planning work; perhaps it’s simply that when push comes to shove, most of these organizations are willing to restrict the services they offer rather than risk losing the funding.
That is certainly the impression I get from the organization representatives cited in the articles, and I think it was reasonable of me to assert on that basis that the policy’s impact has been “severe.” (The 1988 interview with a worker at a Bangladeshi US-funded clinic who said that they would no longer even provide treatment to women suffering bad aftereffects from privately procured abortions—although abortion is not even illegal in Bangladesh—was especially chilling.) But when it comes to actual detailed statistics, we’re apparently still waiting.
Thanks for your patience; we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of potential 2004 Republican veep candidates.