Asked about the first lady's comments Sunday, Rice laughed and good naturedly answered the recurring question about her prospects for president in 2008. No dice, she said for the umpteenth time.First, in her role as Secretary of State, she can't be openly acknowledging that she wants to run for President. Second, "I know what I want to do and that's not it" is a statement in the present tense, and what she "wants to do" must be what she is currently doing. What she wants to be doing in the future and what she will in the future want to do are two additional issues, not addressed by the statement. Finally, we don't know that she will only do the things she "wants to do." One could very well say "I don't want to be President," and still be entirely willing to serve if others prevail upon you.
"Obviously, it's flattering when people say things like that. The first lady is not only a terrific person, she's my friend. And I was honored that she said that, of course. She's a wonderful person," Rice said.
"But I've spoken to this. I know what I'm good at, I know what I want to do and that's not it."
"I know what I want to do and that's not it" is full of possibilities!
As to "I know what I'm good at," I think there should be a period after that. The press reports a run-on sentence, and you know our Condi would not have written it out with a punctuation error like that. So she knows what she's good at. But she doesn't state what it is. Even if we assume "that's not it" relates to "I know what I'm good at," that's modesty, and, again, that's the present tense. She could become better at the skills needed to run for President, and she could run for President even without the highest level of skill. Everyone else who runs for President seems to be rather bad about it. Why is that a special limitation for her?
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
Ann:
I think that you're engaging in eisegesis rather than exegesis of Rice's statement.
Yes, the "I know what I'm good at..." phrase is in the present tense. But it's referent isn't the outside world, it's to herself. She knows what she's good at doing. She knows her talents and her interests.
She also knows her limitations. That's probably what comes through most clearly to me in her statement. As a devoted Christian, Rice knows well and takes seriously Paul's admonition in Romans 12:
"...by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned."
Paul isn't calling Christians to self-abasement, but to liberation. Once one understands what one's gifts and abilities are, it frees a person from scurrying down another person's pathway. The siren's call of acclaim has led many a person to take up tasks that had nothing to do with their gifts, skill sets, or passions. For whatever strengths or deficiencies she may have as a policy-maker, Rice appears to be spiritually mature enough to recognize that running for political office isn't her thing.
As an old pol myself and as one trained to be a History teacher, I've talked about the prospects of a Rice presidential candidacy several times. In those posts, I haven't even looked at the religious angle, which I think plays a powerful role in Rice's approach to life. Here are the URLS for two of those pieces:
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/02/condoleezza-rice-for-president.html
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/05/will-condi-be-nominated-by-gop-in-2008.html
(Note that in each case, you were the writer who incited me to address the subject!)
Mark Daniels
Mark Daniels wrote:
In those posts, I haven't even looked at the religious angle, which I think plays a powerful role in Rice's approach to life.
Bang on.
I recall one time the nonsensically inane (but harmless) Larry King asked her if she was very lucky in life.
She replied quietly, "No. I'm very blessed".
That's the difference between she and others who are secular by default -- her Christian religion is not confined just to Sundays.
I wonder how she handles her diplomatic craft, which after all, is the art of careful subterfuge (if not outright lying)?
Cheers,
Victoria
Chairwoman, Condi for Veep '08 Fanclub
"Obviously, it's flattering when people say things like that. The first lady is not only a terrific person, she's my friend. And I was honored that she said that, of course. She's a wonderful person," Rice said.
Don't you love how the Bush White House, minus the Harriet Miers brainfart, is so close to each other?
No wonder it drives journalists to distraction (and hatred) -- for the past two decades, they are used to the bickering factions of the Troika, and the revolving door of the Clintonistas.
When you have people personally so involved with each other, who not only like each other, but more importantly, like to be with each other even during off-hours, it's hard to get them to spill the beans.
I don't think we've seen a more personally loyal White House since the Kennedys.
If only Dubya could get pals like Ben Bradlee or Hugh Sidey on his side, the MSM dementia towards him would be at least more muted.
Cheers,
Victoria
Halo: I don't know whether Clint was paraphrasing the Bible or not. But it might make a fruitful inquiry.
Is "Go ahead, make my day," for example a paraphrase of, "Give us this day our daily bread"?
Or, is "You feelin' lucky, punk?" a new version of John the Baptist's question, "Have you not known? Have you not seen?"?
Hey, if people can get Bible studies from the Andy Griffith Show or Leave It to Beaver, imagine the rich possibilities in Eastwood's tag lines!
Victoria:
I wasn't familiar with the Larry King interview.
Interesting question about diplomacy and subterfuge. But, it seems to me that those skills would be no less required of her now than in here previous role as an academic administrator. What do you think about that, Ann?
Mark Daniels
I wasn't familiar with the Larry King interview.
I have it recorded, if interested. ;)
I always record everything on Condi and Laura Bush that I see on television.
Not that I have a Woman Crush on them or anything..........
I just like their intelligent spirit and personal elegance.
Yeah that's it.
Interesting question about diplomacy and subterfuge. But, it seems to me that those skills would be no less required of her now than in here previous role as an academic administrator.
Both are bureaucratic positions, and as you well imply, it's not easy to manoeuver around the personality minefields of those professions.
It's curious, isn't it, that the US President most tied to an University, Woodrow Wilson of Princeton, was wildly successful as a diplomat abroad, but failed miserably when it counted most for his pet idea, in his own homeland.
There's no reason to presume Condi would be more successful abroad, than within the US, should she become President, but the skills required of a diplomat/bureaucrat, are quite different from that of a politician/bureaucrat.
And that both Wilson and Rice were/are devout Christians is another reason to make one pause.
Cheers,
Victoria
I definately want Condi to run. I'm a conservative college student, and I've been researching her views and stuff for a while. When I talk about the possibility of a Condi canidacy with my (mostly) liberal friends, they are all open to the idea. I think that most of us couldn't care less about her marital status, and I think that lots of young americans feel the same way.
The one critism I hear most, is that since she would be running as a Republican, she'd never get the nomination, due to our backward/bigotted ways. However, I very much agree with one of the commenters on one of the other posts, that this is something Condi opponents want us to think, and not something that would be a big stumbling point in real life.
I think that the republican electorate will overcome any of these possible stumbling blocks when they realize that she is probably the only conservative candidate that can beat a Hilary nomination. McCain worries too many people on the right because of his 'politicianness,' but Condi wouldn't be dealing with that kind of perception. She could just be honest, and run a very succesful campaign.
I'd at least like to see her attempt a run. It's time for the debate to get broader. And everyone knows that we need a return to conservatism in the republican party. (not necesarily social-conservatism) McCain won't exactly do that...he looks to be pandering too much to the left in the name of 'Consensus'. Anyway, that's just my two cents.
If we're going to do word analysis, why don't we play a little with the quote further down in the same article. There, Rice was asked whether she'd consider a nomination for the Vice Presidency, instead of for the Presidency, and she replied:
"'The two are the same', she said with a grin and a shake of her head."
Since when, prior to Beney or Chush (depending on how you view the teaming of Bush and Cheney), have we had a situation where "The two are the same"? Is this a revealing slip into how the White House views the inhabitants of the top two offices, or am I reading too much into it?
Instincts and a hunch tell me there might be something in Condi's past that she is worried about.
Dale B: "Not everyone aspires to the top."
Thank goodness. Otherwise, there would be nobody for the rest of us to boss around.
gadActually, Victoria, I don't believe that Wilson was all that successful as a diplomat.
While the other negotiators at Versailles acceded to his call for the establishment of a League of Nations and on first arriving in France for the negotiations, he was wildly welcomed by people grateful for US entry and quick disposal of their long war, the rest of his Fourteen Points were largely ignored.
This is most notable in the treaty's imposition of harsh monetary and humiliating military sanctions against the defeated powers. (Many historians believe that these provisions bred such resentment that the rise of Hitler in Germany, or somebody like him, was nearly inevitable.)
The failures of Wilson as a diplomat and a domestic politician echo an old refrain in all his major jobs. In all three major positions he held--president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey, and POTUS--he was unyielding and deficient in his ability to practice what I would call the interpersonal aspects of negotitating. (Another word for that might be "diplomacy.")
He believed that he could win every point by taking his case to the people and convincing them by eloquence and personal charm. (He also thought that he should win every point, because he was a moralist.)
He tried to win assent from the university's overseeing board for his plan of reorganization by taking his case to alumni groups around the country. He lost.
He had great success with the New Jersey Legislature during his first year as governor. (He only served there two years.) But again, owing to intransigence and an unwillingness to engage in personal discussions, he ran into huge problems his second year. Once again, he hit the road, making speeches to convince the people of Jersey to press their legislators to back his program. He had, we can charitably say, mixed results.
He was the fortunate beneficiary of a split in the Republican Party in 1912 to be elected President and he got off to a good start. He even won re-election in 1916.
But once the war came and ended, he made the same mistake with the peace that he'd made in his other job. In Versailles, he mistakenly believed that the acclaim he received on his arrival would help him win the day in negotiations with the other leaders there.
(When, during a brief absence from those negotiations, his right-hand, Colonel House, bent in some of the negotiations, Wilson was furious and never had anything more to do with the man who, more than any other, had helped propel him into the White House.)
Wilson also thought that he could get the US Senate to pass the Versailles Treaty without so much as a single change by convincing the American people to press the Senate on the point. It was on a national speaking tour to move public opinion that he suffered the stroke that ruined his health for the rest of his life.
Wilson was an extraordinary and extraordinarily flawed person. (He also, sadly, was an unrepentant racist.) But some of his good ideas have been picked up on, with mixed results in ensuing years.
(It should be said that his desire for a charitable peace toward the Germans and their allies was akin to Lincoln's notions on Reconstruction after the Civil War. That's ironic because Wilson, raised in the South, was always Confederate, really.)
So, I don't think that Wilson was a very successful diplomat. But someone more knowledgeable than I could correct my impression.
Mark Daniels
Ben wrote:
I'm a conservative college student,
You poor thing. I know just how you feel.
When I talk about the possibility of a Condi canidacy with my (mostly) liberal friends, they are all open to the idea.
This reminds me of the one hour just before the announcement of the new Pope.
Almost every liberal person I know, was cheering vociferously for Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria.
Why? You'll have to ask them, but I personally think it's because he's black.
Never mind that Francis Arinze is perhaps as conservative as the guy who was elected, Benedict XVI (who got skewered by MSM and those same people, immediately after his name was announced).
To certain people, the bitter medicine goes down easier when the superficials are adhered to.
The one critism I hear most, is that since she would be running as a Republican, she'd never get the nomination, due to our backward/bigotted ways.
Please, how condescending they are.
You think any conservative cares if Michelle Malkin is half-Filippino?
What's important, as in Francis Arinze's case, is that his/her views should be conservative.
This is the same ridiculous argument people make about "People hate Hillary because she's a woman".
No, certain people hate her because she's a liberal.
Or you think conservatives hated Maggie T?
Cheers,
Victoria
Actually, Victoria, I don't believe that Wilson was all that successful as a diplomat.
Actually, I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, that much, Mark.
The key word is "ultimately", though.
While the other negotiators at Versailles acceded to his call for the establishment of a League of Nations and on first arriving in France for the negotiations, he was wildly welcomed by people grateful for US entry and quick disposal of their long war, the rest of his Fourteen Points were largely ignored.
He had a Messianic complex at the best of times, but when the French crowds (and later the British crowds) greeted him with a desperation of the almost-vanquished, it really went to his head.
Hmm, where did I put my Freud book on Wilson's psychohistory...
This is most notable in the treaty's imposition of harsh monetary and humiliating military sanctions against the defeated powers. (Many historians believe that these provisions bred such resentment that the rise of Hitler in Germany, or somebody like him, was nearly inevitable.)
Agreed, about the Versaille Treaty (note that the harshest language was at the behest of the French, led by "Le Tigre" Clemenceau, who reviled the Germans).
Albeit I'm not sure any other politician could have done what Hitler did, Mark.
Without too much of a detour, I'm sure you'll agree someone like, say, Hugenberg, an ultra-nationalist German, couldn't have done to Germany, what Hitler ultimately did.
He was the "perfect" demagogue for very desperate times.
The failures of Wilson as a diplomat and a domestic politician echo an old refrain in all his major jobs. In all three major positions he held--president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey, and POTUS--he was unyielding and deficient in his ability to practice what I would call the interpersonal aspects of negotitating. (Another word for that might be "diplomacy.")
Very true.
OTOH, his worth was universally acknowledged in his lifetime, he trebled Princeton coffers, and raised its profile in the US to be on par with Harvard and Yale, bumping off the third rung such equally Ivy League worthies as Dartmouth and William & Mary.
Later, he was handpicked by kingmakers in his home state, to run for the Governorship.
Perhaps he was the compromise candidate in the three-pony race of 1913, but that doesn't mean the people didn't see him as a more conciliatory (diplomatic?) figure.
He believed that he could win every point by taking his case to the people and convincing them by eloquence and personal charm. (He also thought that he should win every point, because he was a moralist.)
Oh dangerous thing for a POTUS...a la Carter.
He tried to win assent from the university's overseeing board for his plan of reorganization by taking his case to alumni groups around the country. He lost.
It also didn't help that he loathed the rich people to whom he had to kowtow to -- with the same disdain any high-bound intellectual has for those who buy their accomplishments in life (according to their lights).
He had great success with the New Jersey Legislature during his first year as governor. (He only served there two years.) But again, owing to intransigence and an unwillingness to engage in personal discussions, he ran into huge problems his second year. Once again, he hit the road, making speeches to convince the people of Jersey to press their legislators to back his program. He had, we can charitably say, mixed results.
Agreed.
(snip excellent commentary, much of which I echoed above)
Wilson was an extraordinary and extraordinarily flawed person. (He also, sadly, was an unrepentant racist.)
Alas. Just goes to show, all the schooling in the world, doesn't make for a truly civilised person.
In a way, that reminds me of the knock on DW Griffith, whose uncle was part-founder of the Klan.
But some of his good ideas have been picked up on, with mixed results in ensuing years.
I would say his idealism is very American.
The belief that the world would be a much better place, if the basic tenets of the American experience were followed by all.
And I daresay that's right.
But it's easier aspired to, than done (pace Iraq).
(It should be said that his desire for a charitable peace toward the Germans and their allies was akin to Lincoln's notions on Reconstruction after the Civil War. That's ironic because Wilson, raised in the South, was always Confederate, really.)
Ah well, so was the eminently respectable, and worthy, Robert E. Lee.
So, I don't think that Wilson was a very successful diplomat. But someone more knowledgeable than I could correct my impression.
I think you've proven yourself in that regard, quite ably. :)
As for me, this thread is on the verge of being an Althouse classic, but dude, I have to take advantage of that Florida sun at 79F!
Catch you later. ;)
Cheers,
Victoria
Mark: "I think that you're engaging in eisegesis rather than exegesis of Rice's statement. "
I don't think you can apply the same methods to interpreting the words of Jesus and the words of a politician. People look at scriptures and try to find what they want for their self-serving reasons, but with a politician, it's almost the reverse. The politician frames statements cagily in his/her own self-interest. Therefore we ought to work to get to the real meaning. We should notice exactly what is said and see what it not said.
Victoria:
You make some excellent points. Although, from the vantage point of original intent, we've probably taken Althouse's post way off course, I want to touch on one thing you say, almost tangentially.
Like you, I believe that Carter was a lot like Wilson. In fact, the litany of analogs is at times, almost hauntingly apt. Both came from Georgia, although Wilson was born in Staunton, VA. Both were overtly committed Christians, although Wilson was more of a legalist. Both were one-term governors before being elected President, both seen as reformers. Above all though, both were rigid and control freaks. Both found it difficult to deal with Congress because of their rigidity.
Now, to reconnect this business of being a moralist with Rice's original statement and my belief that it stems from her Christian faith, I make one point:
There is a difference between being a moralist and being a Christian. While morals definitely flow from Christianity, faith in Christ is primarily about the healing of our relationship with God (and by extension, other people) that is offered to all through Christ. Moralism may be practiced by Christians, those of other faiths, or those of no faith at all. While Christians should have no interest in imposing their faith on others, many Christians seem to see this as part of their life mission. (There is a difference between sharing one's faith in word and deed--evangelism--and imposing one's faith or one's version of the faith on others. Wilson believed that his views, even when they shifted as they notoriously did prior to his election as governor, when he moved from being a conservative Democrat to be being a reformer, were Christian simply because he believed in them and he thought of himself as an impeccably moral Christian man.
Victoria, you obviously know a thing or two about Wilson!
Mark Daniels
Ann:
Those terms are used in all sorts of criticism, but I take your point.
I simply meant that our first question when confronted with a person's words is: What did they actually say?
Mark
Just for fun, I went and looked at some of those unofficial Condi-For-President sites and one of them says Bush has taken to calling her "44." Hee!
Mark and Victoria,
Excellent discussion of Wilson! Your comments could very well become an Althouse classic.
To quote a song of the period: "We take our hats off to you, Mr. Wilson...." Unfortunately, they were back on all too soon.
I've always felt Wilson was our most tragic President save Lincoln. The American missteps in the aftermath of WWI helped set in train the catastrophies of the 20th century. And the American missteps were at least partially the result of Wilson's stroke and physical collapse. Could he have sold the League of Nations to the Senate and the American public? Was it inevitable that a Hitler would arise in Germany? Who knows? All we have are those sad, sad words, "might have been."
Sorry this is so off topic, but I can't resist Wilson-talk. Back to Condi now....
Like you, I believe that Carter was a lot like Wilson.
It's hard to see Wilson taking a day off in his first week as President, just in order to micromanage the White House tennis schedule for staffers though, as allegedly the maniacally controlling President Carter did...
In fact, the litany of analogs is at times, almost hauntingly apt. Both came from Georgia, although Wilson was born in Staunton, VA. Both were overtly committed Christians, although Wilson was more of a legalist. Both were one-term governors before being elected President, both seen as reformers. Above all though, both were rigid and control freaks. Both found it difficult to deal with Congress because of their rigidity.
President Carter was the more perfect man, though, I think everyone can acknowledge.
President Wilson was an uxorious man, but he did have affairs with other women, whenever he took holidays with his good friend, Mark Twain (to Bermuda, e.g.).
Try as I might, I cannot see the man who told Playboy that he had "lust in his heart" for women, doing that to Mrs. C.
But both men share a love of being surrounded by females.
To Wilson, a coterie of women fussing over him, was primordial to him.
Men tended to correct him, that is, until they saw he shut them off if they did so, even in the smallest of disagreements.
What a pip he must've been.
As the French say, he was there for glory or for ridicule.
There is a difference between being a moralist and being a Christian.
Undoubtedly!
And then there are some of us who wish to be moralists, but are "merely" Christian -- namely, we hold our faith to be a guide of behaviour, in charity, love, and "righteousness", in the Judeo sense of the word.
While morals definitely flow from Christianity, faith in Christ is primarily about the healing of our relationship with God (and by extension, other people) that is offered to all through Christ.
That's it right there.
And the present Pope seems to be currently on an one-man mission to hammer home this very point (thank God).
Moralism may be practiced by Christians, those of other faiths, or those of no faith at all. While Christians should have no interest in imposing their faith on others, many Christians seem to see this as part of their life mission.
Well, Mark I'm not a relativist, either (though I understand your point).
Evangelising, as you mention below, is personally alien and embarrassing to me, because I am enough a product of the late 20th century, to feel I am imposing something on others, when I speak of Christianity.
But that doesn't mean I don't realise that's the duty of Christians -- to spread the gospel of Christ.
That others do, is fine by me.
(There is a difference between sharing one's faith in word and deed--evangelism--and imposing one's faith or one's version of the faith on others.
There I disagree.
Oh that may be the ideal, and Christianity (as well as other religions) wish to draw you to their religion, the better for you to convert voluntarily, but I don't think in reality that's how it has worked since the early 100s.
Christianity was forged precisely because it was a State-initiative since the time of Constantine.
Those lessons of history were hardly lost on people like Wilson.
Wilson believed that his views, even when they shifted as they notoriously did prior to his election as governor, when he moved from being a conservative Democrat to be being a reformer, were Christian simply because he believed in them and he thought of himself as an impeccably moral Christian man.
That yes.
But see, I never have confused a man's espousal of religion, and his preternatural need to have his ego reaffirmed, by always having to be in the right.
I daresay, he would think the same of the certainty and personal emobodiment of his religion, had he been (in the usage of my grandmother's time) a Mohammedan.
Victoria, you obviously know a thing or two about Wilson!
Merely a student, yet all too happy to learn from good tutors like you. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
Mark and Victoria,
Excellent discussion of Wilson! Your comments could very well become an Althouse classic.
Thanks, Theo!
And I concur that we'll never know just how much Wilson would've accomplished, had he been physically sound post-WWI.
OTOH, WWI was the making of him, as a statesman. Returning to being "just" a politician, might've left him cold.
P.S.: LOL @ Rice '44, knoxgirl.
Cheers,
Victoria
Oooh! Another reason to vote for Condi in '08. Can you imagine Ted Kennedy attempting to grill Ann Althouse at a confirmation hearing? I would crawl on my hands and knees all the way to Washington to see THAT.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा