Because the buzz helps defuse the party’s image of being run only by white men. Or they think it does, anyway.
Julian Bond helped explain why Romney went to the NAACP:
Same sort of posturing.
On one of the news shows (forget which) there was a pundent who said he thought the Condi rumor really was started by the Romney camp to deflect stories about Bain. However, this pundent went on to say it was a stupid thing to do as “no matter who he picks for VP now, it will seem bland and uninspired compared to the supposed Condi option.”
The Romney campaign wants to put the message out that they’re not just about rich white guys.
Has there been any potential candidate out there who the Romney campaign declared wasn’t under consideration when asked? It would be stupid to do that.
He said she was smart, not honest.
To my knowledge they haven’t made any statements about ruling any specific person out of consideration. However, I feel safe saying any person who is pro-choice can be automatically ruled out. Anything else would be stupid on their part given the history of Republican nominees and their stand on this issue.
That rules Condi out of anything close to serious consideration for the VP slot.
You missed some:
It’s “pundit,” from Hindi paṇḍit, meaning a learned person. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, is often referred to by the honorific “Pandit Nehru.”
So, it’s your contention that the Romney campaign is always truthful in what they say about their plans and strategy? Or is this an argument you bring up only when it conveniently suits your purpose?
A Romney/Obama Fusion ticket would be unexpected.
There has never been a Republican ticket, winning or losing, with a pro-choice candidate on it.
Dole was pro-life. Pat Buchanan backed off running for a third party as long as Kemp was pro-life. In 1996, the GOP reaffirmed their pledge to enact a Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution.
I have no idea where you got that as it doesn’t relate to anything I have posted in this thread.
What argument are you talking about? Are you suggesting the Republicans have nominated a pro-choice person as President or VP at some point in the past? If they did, did they win? I would say no and no.
Or are you taking issue with the idea it would be stupid to do so at this time?
The only other thing I have said is that a possible explanation for floating Rice’s name was as derail the discussion of Romney’s tenure at Bain. I’m hardly the only person in this thread to suggest this.
I could also see this as being true:
Either way I don’t believe they are seriously considering Condi.
In post #26 I quoted the following statement by you:
and then posted this in reply:
Is this what you are going on about? You do realize I’m agreeing with you, right? How am I put forth an argument here?