How not? Wouldn’t it make the Pubs look less racist/sexist, and balance them with the Dems WRT those issues?
I am a Republican and cannot believe how few props Bush received for having Powell and then Rice as Secretary of State. Then the Demos vote Pelosi as SOTH and that is treated as a Christmas miracle by the press.
(Actually I do believe it because the culture in America is to ignore everything Bush does right and focus on everything he does wrong)
But honestly - Cunnilingus Rice as VP?! Please no! :smack:
And for those of you that think it would be a brilliant move to minimize the Obama/Clinton factor - you are sooooooo wrong. Bush nominating Rice will either be ignored as much as possible (unlikely) or will be portrayed as pitifully reacting to Obama/Clinton (very likely).
shudder
I’m curious too. What are her qualifications? (She’s completely unqualified morally, but I assume you’re talking about experience.)
Um, with respect, this is patently untrue. Indeed, there have been some memorable battles dating back to before the Democrats had control of the Senate. Must we list these for edification? 
They don’t have to fillibuster it; they control both houses of Congress, you know. Please, let’s keep basic facts in mind here.
Well, without discussing the outcome of her efforts (which frankly could be just as much a result of intransigence on the part of the President as inability on the part of Condoleeza Rice), she IS Secretary of State, and was National Security Advisor. The Secretary of State was, at one time, considered a prime stepping stone office to the Presidency, though in recent (like the last century! 
) years, it’s not been that way.
Can anyone say that Barack Obama’s qualifications are greater to be President, given that his political career on the national stage includes less than one full term as Senator from Illinois? Does Hillary Clinton become more qualified to run the country by benefit of having been a one-term senator, plus part of a second? Hell, Ron Paul has a better “record” than any of them. 
and the use of this type of insult advances your argument and impresses us about your debating skills in what way?
Again, as I said above, having served as the captain of the Titanic qualifies as extensive marine experience, but I’d first pick the guy who didn’t hit the iceberg.
Are you kidding?
[ul]
[li]She has a PhD.[/li][li]She was on the board of directors for Chevron, Charles Schwab, Hewlitt Packard, and Transamerica[/li][li]As provost at Stanford, she turned a $20 million deficit to a $14 million surplus[/li][li]She speaks Spanish, French, German and Russian[/li][li]She was Bush Sr.'s Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification.[/li][li]She was National Security Advisor when Libya agreed to divest itself of WMD.[/li][/ul] I really, really don’t think you want to start comparing experience between Obama and Rice.
Some people got where they are by being pretty and talking well. Others are over-achievers to a breathtaking degree. The fact that the Usual Suspects cannot think rationally about anyone associated with Bush is mere raving.
Regards,
Shodan
- Which means she should remain in academia.
- She didn’t see the dissolution coming and being around while Germans managed their own reunification counts about as much as Woody Allen’s axiom, “90% of success is simply showing up.”
- Again, the British had worked on that for years. Talk about assigning credit where it isn’t due.
This has nothing to due with my bias against Bush – time and again on this board I’ve taken to the defense of an Administration which I oppose because the criticism was facile or off-base. But on this count, the criticism is right on the money. Again, Rice should have been fired as National Security Adviser because she did a terrible job.
You probably inadvertantly omitted the answer to another two questions. I’ll restate my earlier post.
Both these were answered. Whether or not they were the answers you wanted is something else.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll assume that the answer to the objective foreign policy accomplishments question was “none”. You listed her resume, but where are the metrics? It’s a list of jobs she has held, and not of what she accomplished while holding them. Hell, start off with the first one, she holds a PhD.
A PhD. means you can explain a complicated idea to an intelligent person. That doesn’t take much talent, intelligent people understand pretty readily. The real test of ability is if you can explain a simple idea to an average person. I kind of wish she’d shown that ability.
If Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are qualified to be president for 4 years, then Rice is qualified to be VP for a month or two. Sheesh. Do you guys not know the difference between having experience and supporting policy positions that you agree/disagree with?
Absolute loyalty to The Great Leader. What else do you need to know?
You know what would actually be funny? It would be amazingly funny if some of the members of this board used Great Debates to do something other than trot out the same old tired, weary, biased thought processes as if they were startling insights. :dubious:
It’s the contrast that would hurt them. The Democrat Party would be saying it thinks a black candidate or a female candidate is good enough to run for President. The Republican Party would look like its response is that a black candidate or a female candidate is only good enough to run for Vice-President. The comparison would be murderous. Especially because it would also look like the Republicans were only reluctantly going that far because the Democrats were running Clinton or Obama so they had to make a token gesture.
For what it’s worth, for all his faults, I’ve never thought that Bush was racist or sexist. In fact, he’s always been very willing to put women or non-whites in major positions of power and done so in a matter-of-fact way that indicates he’s not just trying to score symbolic points.
[quote=The WizardBack where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have! But they have one thing you haven’t got - a diploma.[/quote]
I know quite a few people with PhD’s whom I wouldn’t trust to organize a birthday party. No doubt you do too.
Shodan, what are her accomplishments? Got anything but a list of titles?
Ravenman, Carol Stream, whoosh. :rolleyes:
Correct on both points, however, I believe the previous poster misspoke and meant to say that if Liberman would take the VP slot, then the GOP would take over the Senate. The Dems control the Senate 51-49 (yes, I know 2 INDs, but they vote with the DEMS), so if Lieberman resigned to become VP, the GOP governor of CT would appoint a Republican to his seat, making it a 50-50 tie, so control of the Senate would rest on the vote of : Lieberman (which I just figured out while typing this)
So, assuming he would be Bush’s VP and STILL caucus with the DEMS? Dunno, but interesting…