IN THE COMMENTS: A pseudonymous Condi hater makes a racist slur, and after I delete it, makes it again, in the middle of the night, so that I don't see it to delete it for a few hours. When I do delete it, I write:
I suspect Democrats who fear the strength of a Rice Presidency have a stake in making Republicans fear that racism will sink her. Who are these people who are willing to slink about and type racist slurs in the hope that conservatives will stay in touch with racist feelings some moronic liberals assume surely lurk in their hearts? Or is it just a relief to finally find a way to express their own racism? Be careful, Condi opponents, we will be closely monitoring your racism. Though possibly not in the middle of the night!
I note the possibility that the commenter in question is not a Condi hater but is only posing as one to make people who actually oppose her look bad.
Posts
52 comments:
I think Laura Bush is terrific!
She won't win if she does run. The Bush administration has failed to address a continually deteriorating healthcare system, exploding deficits, and still hasn't figured out how to get us out of Iraq.
Condi would be considered a continuation of what we have now, and people won't vote for it.
Re: "The Bush administration has failed to address a continually deteriorating healthcare system, exploding deficits, and still hasn't figured out how to get us out of Iraq."
In contrast, the Democrats have this great plan for nationalized health care (run by the same people that brought you the humane Alito hearings!), exploding deficits, and no plan for Iraq than 'cut-and-run'.
Whatta platform!
Wasn't Harriet Meyers nominated on the strength of Laura's recommendation? That turned out real well.
I'm a Democrat, but I'd like to see Condi run; she is very impressive personally, and I'd like to see her run on her own. Having said that, I think a Rice candidacy would make a lot of people in the Republican party unhappy -- this is the same party who counts the Bob Jones University types as an important part of their base.
I'd say its unlikely that a bachelor could be elected President. Could 40-something single woman?
Per comments here and here, I am not opposed, but I have certain concerns. Contra Eli, though, I think Rice would not only win, but would eviscerate any conceivable Democratic opponent in 2008.
I'm of the opinion that she should run, but I say that without endorsement, or particular desire for her to win (I'd also like to see Newt Gingrich and Olympia Snowe run), if for no other reason because then we would find out what her positions on various issues are. I'm not opposed to her being the candidate any more than I'm in favor of it - my point is simply that we know so little about her that it seems absurd to be gung-ho for her. Rather, I think that the GOP is a big tent party, and I think a genuinely diverse group of primary candidates would be a healthy undertaking for the party.
A trial balloon?
Probably not.
A nudge in the right direction?
Possibly, maybe Pres. Bush sees a possible Pres. Rice as an amazing legacy he could leave an even more lasting imprint on U.S. and World Politics than he has already (and besides, she's the right person for the job, and the times)
I'd say its unlikely that a bachelor could be elected President. Could 40-something single woman?
What a great question. Are the implications of being unmarried different for men and women? How does the adjunct of family function for men and women in the political sphere? It's possible that a woman without a husband and/or kids can be seen as more in charge, more steely, and that could be good for her.
I can't say I'd vote for her, but I'd be pleased to see her run.
If Newt runs, I want a full investigation into all his extra-marital blowjobs first. National security could be at stake.
Cheney's ticker might make an excellent excuse for her to slip into the Veep slot. Then she's really anointed as the party favorite.
I know Dick and Lynne want to go fishing and spend lots of time with the grandchildren.
Analyzing the First Lady's rare public statements on controversial issues over the last five years, I would say that they are often well-coordinated trial balloons.
I take this as a sign Condi is looking to run, and that Bush & Rove would be very interested in that possibility. Bear in mind that their early horse, Frist, stumbled out of the gate and they need to get a candidate prepped by this summer.
Puts me in mind of an old Bloom County (I think I also made this comment when Dr. Rice became SecState), in which Binkley's dad, a committed liberal, had to Call A Friend (Oliver's dad) for reassurance that he wasn't evil for not liking Jesse Jackson. Oliver's dad takes him by the shoulders and tells him, "The first black President will be a conservative." Could it be... maybe... that the first African-American President AND the first woman President will be a conservative? Or (even better, by my lights) a neocon?
Elizabeth: indeed yes, given that the Chief Executive has almost been reliant on a First Lady (though sometimes a daughter, right?) to attend to social details, and it'd be hopelessly emasculating even for the most liberal man, I think, to take on the role of picking out the White House china (not trying to be sexist here, just looking at reality as it's manifested itself to me), might it not be easier for a single woman to be elected than a married woman? A single woman could have a personal assistant do all the public First Lady stuff without cost to either her own image or a spouse's. Plus, even though Dr. Rice obviously has a goodly portion of gravitas, she's sufficiently "feminine" that the inevitable homophobic smears might not be so sticky.
I think it's a pipe dream, but you never know.
I would imagine a segment of the Republican party would be unhappy; it would have nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with her stance on abortion.
"is running" and "will be running" are two VERY different things. I'd be inclined to support her but that would depend on getting some more info on her positions on some social issues. There is no clear word on what positions she would take.
Jabba, do you really mean to argue that Bob Jones U. isn't racist?
The Bob Jones University web site (URL is www.bju.edu - snicker)states that there are 5000 students “from every state and 40 foreign countries.”
So, let’s say that 4000 of the students are voting American citizens. Let’s also say that they have at least one sibling each and two parents each. That makes 16,000 people. That’s not a very big “base” from which to pull.
Also note that the student featured on the web site's home page is black. At least they're trying to look as though it is not a racist institution.
Bob Jones University types are an important part of the Republican base? A numerically tiny and functionally insignificant part of their base, maybe, but little more than that.
Terrence, you need to get out more. Maybe meet some actual Republicans. I think you'd be surprised.
Go Condi!
Lastango:
I have to disagree with you on one thing: I am a Democrat and I see a huge difference between Rice and Powell. Rice is as responsible as anybody for the mess we have gotten ourselves into in Iraq. She along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a few others, chose to start a war first, then put together whatever bits of information and excuses they could engineer into a justification. And I know I could never support anyone who pushed us into this mess.
Powell, on the other hand, disagreed with it internally. It is true that he supported his C-in-C publically (he is, after all a professional and a soldier), even going before the UN and presenting a fistfull of what we now know to be faulty information. However, I have blogged on that before, I think Powell believed it to be true at the time and regrets being used. I've always respected Colin Powell and respected what he says, even if I don't agree with it.
I would never vote for Rice. But although I'm a Democrat and a Liberal, I'd consider voting for Colin Powell.
I vote based on who controls the deficit -- I had no idea this would make me a staunch Democrat.
"the mess we have gotten ourselves into in Iraq"
Wow, I didn't know there were still people insisting Iraq is a failure.
woops I forgot:
GO CONDI GO!!!!!
I'm not surprised that goober_snatcher's racist comment has been allowed to remain. That remark, more than any of his other comments, tells us everything we need to know about him.
That he is a jerk, a racist and a buffoon we need no longer pay any attention to.
miklos rosza and others: I'm not here overseeing things at all hours. I've deleted it. You've quoted it, though, so it is still there. I suspect Democrats who fear the strength of a Rice Presidency have a stake in making Republicans fear that racism will sink her. Who are these people who are willing to slink about and type racist slurs in the hope that conservatives will stay in touch with racist feelings some moronic liberals assume surely lurk in their hearts. Or is it just a relief to finally find a way to express their own racism? Be careful, Condi opponents, we will be closely monitoring your racism. Though possibly not in the middle of the night!
By the way, I deleted the same slur earlier and he came back and reposted it.
Liberals, much more than conservatives, form opinions based on race. The bitterness of our current political climate reveals that those opinions are increasingly ugly and bigoted and racist.
I hope to god Condi runs, and wins, because it will take the sad, retro state of race politics in this country and turn it on its head. Hate speech will spew from the mouths of the "liberal" establishment and David Duke will vote Democrat. America will never be the same.
GO CONDI GO!
The left points at the Bob Jones contingent. But I think the reality is that her nomination would cause a meltdown in the Democratic party.
Their problem, as I see it, is that to some extent, part of their party identity is based on the assumption that they are more racially sensitive. That they are the party representing the downtroden in our society, and in particular, ethnic minorities. And they show this by pushing affirmative action.
But how close has a non-white person made it to the Democratic party nomination? Not very. Jesse Jackson was considered a joke, and Sharpton even more of one. Few, if any, took either of their candidacies seriously.
The Democrats aren't going to nominate a Black for the presidency because they view race in terms of affirmative action. And since there aren't that many Blacks in the country, their place is back on the plantation - though I will admit that Ron Brown did get his Commerce post based on his own merits (but he never could have run for president, given his corruption). No, the best place for an African-American in a Democratic administration is Surgeon General.
So, you have a Black woman, growing up in the segregated south, experiencing racial violence with the deaths of her friends, etc., rising to the top of the Republican party based entirely on her own merits.
This is a different paradigm. Yes, many of the less qualified minorities will still opt for advancement through affirmative action, and, therefore, the Democratic party. But plenty of the more competent will look to the Republican race blind philosophy kindly.
Let me also add that I don't see abortion disqualifying her, at least if she could get the nomination. If she does, or is on-track, I see the Democrats seeing no choice but nominating Hillary Clinton. And if they do, I see a lot of those (few IMHO) who would consider staying home on election day, not doing so in order to keep Mrs. Clinton from having another chance at stealing White House furnishings.
Also, though I think of Dr. Rice as primarily a Neocon, she can walk the walk and talk the talk when it comes to religion. Her father was a minister, and she has shown a devoutly religious side ever since - including being a church organist at most of the churches she has attended until joining the Bush (43) Administration (I doubt that she has the flexibility to do so now).
And I think that this confluence of the neocon and religious is important here. These are two very important groups in the Republican party, and bringing them together is hard. President Bush to some extent can be seen as such, but is more seen as religious, with Cheney and Rumsfeld the Administration's neocon side. My view is that Dr. Rice brings these two together much better than any almost any other politician on the national scene.
wv (2nd try): UMPDA - Cray computer UNICOS/mp Dump Analysis
As to the racism of conservatives, I'm sure there are some, as I'm sure there are some liberal racists as well. But I went to a conservative film festival couple of months ago (my first conservative event) and during one documentary (Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution)about black people and their history with the Republican Party, Condi appeared on screen. The whole crowd cheered; half the audience stood up and cheered!
Of course Laura's statement is one of the trial balloons. I think she's got it if she wants it.
As for being single, I think women might have more gravitas if their kids are grown, like Thatcher, rather than if they are married. They need to look like the aura of motherhood is behind them.
BTW who would be Condi's ideal escort? My vote is Jack Straw. Good for the alliance and all.
You heard it here first...
Rice/Rummy '08
Can somebody please explain to me why everyone is so smitten with Condi? I'm looking for the brilliant mind that everyone's talking about and I'm not seeing it. Whenever she speaks, I hear a snotty know-it-all who's covering up her own insecurities by looking down her nose at her political opponents. If somebody out there is willing to educate me on the topic, I promise I'm open minded; I would love to have a president with the qualities that Condi is said to possess. I just don't see those qualities in her.
Condi is also vulnerable on a couple of key issues, one style, one substance. Her awkward physical appearance and stiff speaking style will hurt her in a national campaign. And her fingerprints were all over the deception that "allegedly" took place over WMDs. She was on the Sunday morning talk shows warning about mushroom clouds, and she played a big role in the "16 words" that made their way into the State of the Union Address. If the situation in Iraq hasn't improved significantly between now and 2008, the Dems will have an opportunity to reopen the question of how we got in there in the first place, and Condi will have some 'splainin' to do.
"...whenever she speaks, I hear a snotty know-it-all who's covering up her own insecurities by looking down her nose at her political opponents"
huh?
I think maybe that's the sound of your own insecurities you're hearing...
Beale wants to know what we conservatives see in Condi.
Now Beale is correct in noting that Condi is a stiff speaker at times. If Condi is going to run, she's going to have to work on that.
Beale is incorrect in thinking that the kerfluffle over WMD will harm her, at least with conservatives. We conservatives had a half-dozen good reasons why Saddam had to go, and Condi knows all of them.
Now then, why would I, a white male conservative, support Condi for president (and she's my #1 pick right now):
1) She's smart. She has the intellectual horsepower to do the job.
2) She's street-smart. She's been around in life, done a number of jobs, and has a healthy perspective.
3) She's adaptable. Very important quality to have, since we don't know what challenges a president will face. Good thing we had GWB and not Al Gore on 9/12/01, as one example.
4) She has a spine. She'll stand tough and not allow polls to distract her, just like GWB and unlike most of the Dems mentioned for the job.
Notice that I haven't commented on specific positions she's taken on the issues of the day. I don't vote for a President based on issues, I vote based on character traits. That's why I couldn't vote for Al Gore (acknowledging that he's a smart fellow), and why I couldn't vote for John Kerry.
Condi versus Hillary? No contest: Condi has a spine, Hillary doesn't.
Beale: I had the same reaction to your perception that Rice is "snotty" that Knoxgirl did. It is a very common response to powerful women to see them as "arrogant" or "conceited" or something like that. Those words come readily to mind in judging women. I really do think men who use such words about strong women are having rather primal feelings, a physical urge toward male domination. I would recommend heightening your awareness of this reaction and overcoming it. Ah, there: did you just perceive me as arrogant?
Along the lines of several other posters, I've long predicted that Dick Cheney would resign for "health reasons" and be replaced by Condi Rice, thereby setting her up for a Presidential bid in 2008. I expect this to happen sometime in the first half of 2007, to give her time to get "experience" as VP and pre-empt other potential Republican candidates.
Condi would be a shoo-in for the Republican nomination and a heavy favorite to be elected in 2008. She'd peal away at least 25% of the black vote based on identity politics, and the Democrats can't afford to lose any black votes. She'd lose a few votes to racists and misogynists, but far fewer than conventional wisdom would predict, and those votes would be more than compensated for by guilty white voters anxious to prove they're not anti-black or anti-woman. In a head-to-head contest between her and Hillary, Condi wins easily.
It's also possible that Condi could replace Cheney in August or September of 2006, in time to effect the November elections. Imagine the impact of Bush nominating a black woman as VP! It would suck all of the oxygen out of whatever issues and attacks the Democrats are trying to gain traction on. Imagine the impact of Congressional confirmation hearings in the midst of campaign season! Some Democrats would try to Bork her, while others would walk on egg shells, and the moonbat base would go crazy. They'd be sure it was the supremely evil plot of Karl Rove.
Cheney has had several recent hospital visits, and he can pick any time he likes to announce that his health precludes him from continuing as VP.
I think maybe that's the sound of your own insecurities you're hearing...
If I'm so insecure, what am I doing posting comments on this blog? I'm truly interested in what the big deal is with Condi. You seem pretty certain, perhaps you can tell me.
Hypothetical strategy: Cheney resigns on grounds of ill health, Bush makes Condi VP, and voilá, she's the nominee with the prestige of high office.
That said, I like Giuliani better, in spite of his stand on social issues and his marital history. National security is Issue No. 1, and I think he'd be strong on that.
I would rather hear Condi on the piano than Hillary.
I know that Hillary's notion of health care has been found wanting: have the Government come up with the flu vaccine to be produced, pay someone to make it, then give it away. Before Hillary, we had 7 or more US companies making flu vaccine. Now we have none, and the single variety of vaccine produced in foreign countries can be contaminated or may not work against the strain that actually has mutated.
Whe would make the entire US healthcare system just as ineffective, just as slow to respond, and just as bureaucratized. No Thanks.
s
You've gotta be in a pretty deep state of denial to denounce conservatives as racist in the middle of a thread of FULL of conservative Condi-supporters! Without exception, it's liberals speaking out against Condi, not conservatives!
Just how exactly do you guys rationalize that she is already Secretary of State for a republican administration? I've heard the disgusting "House Slave" explanation, what else you got?
"Racist Pig" is no longer a term reserved for conservatives.... those days are over.
GO CONDI GO
Beale said..."If I'm so insecure, what am I doing posting comments on this blog? "
It doesn't take much nerve to post comments anonymously on the internet!
"I'm truly interested in what the big deal is with Condi. You seem pretty certain, perhaps you can tell me."
Condi comes across as supremely capable in every respect, it's that simple. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't especially enthusiastic because she's a woman.
I object to your criticism of her because, to be honest, it sounds like you don't like her because she intimidates you. We're talking about a very accomplished person, and a person who does not back down under great pressure from the anti-war media (thank god).
Of all criticisms to come up with, for Condoleeza Rice you chose "insecurity"...
? ? ?
blassingame if my response was not accurate it's because I wasn't talking to you!
azlibertarian said...
"You heard it here first...Rice/Rummy '08"
Right now, Donald Rumsfeld is six heart attacks from the Presidency, and in my opinion - as a Republican who supported, and continues to support the liberation of Iraq - that's quite close enough, thankyou very much.
Simon: LOL! me too.
"You've gotta be in a pretty deep state of denial to denounce conservatives as racist in the middle of a thread of FULL of conservative Condi-supporters!"
Without meaning to detract from the arguing over the racial angle (frankly, I couldn't care less whether someone is white, black, or purple polka-dot), I'm interested in how conservative Condi supporters rationalize their support for her against her stated (supportive) views on affirmative action and abortion, which are antithetical to conservative values? I appreciate that if the President's role was only as originally envisioned - i.e., primarily concerned with foreign and security concerns - that these points would not be of concern, and her obvious appeal as a continuation of the Bush doctrine in foregin policy would be stronger. But we are not electing her to the Presidency that was, or even which might have been; we are talking about nominating someone who is pro-choice and pro-AA to an office which appoints Judges, and who has enormous influence by setting the national tone.
How do those conservatives who support Condi square their support against these things?
Before I write any kind of substantive response, can I profess amusement (possibly unfair, since he's new) at Fenrisulven presuming to tell me what the GOP's positon on abortion and Roe are? ;)
Lots of projecting going on today:
Beale her/his insecurities
Blass his pedophilia
Harvard Gal her party's shrinking tolerance and "tent"
Let me get this straight. You guys are jumping on here to:
1. tell a bunch of conservatives who support a black female for president that conservatives can't *possibly* support a black female for president.
and to
2. tell a bunch of conservatives who are willling to accept that Condi might be pro-choice that conservatives would never accept that Condi might be pro-choice.
? ? ?
just wanna end on a positive note:
GO CONDI GO
2. tell a bunch of conservatives who are willling to accept that Condi might be pro-choice that conservatives would never accept that Condi might be pro-choice.
Yep, because this bunch of conservatives is not representative of the bunch of conservatives who'll decide the nomination. Just like MoveOn.org is not representative of people who actually vote on the election day.
I am on Condi's bandwagon btw. I'm just trying to keep up the diversity of opinion and pragmatism on this wagon.
All Republicans are charlatans and closeted bigots and useful idiot
HarvardGal:
1)look in the mirror lately?
Your snobbish bigotry against those you disagree with is obvious, and your projection is both dumb and useful. Congratulations, baby, you're on candid camera.
Try thinking for yourself for once
Says a troll who puts 'Harvard' in their nickname...
Keep going :)
Fenrisulven,
The reason I am amused at your presumption is that I am fully conversant what the GOP's position on abortion and Roe since I'm a Republican and am active in both moderate and more conservative Republican circles. The question was indeed asked in good faith, but I think you misunderstood the impetus behind the question. I'm not trying to trip up all those beastly Republicans on their own convictions - I am one of those beastly Republicans, and - as I have already mentioned at least twice in this thread - I am far from opposed to a Rice candidacy. I understand why a lot of Republicans like Condi - electing her would, in all likelihood be, in many ways be a continuation of the current administration. I'm not opposed to that; I would welcome that.
I do, however, find the willingness to throw down so strongly behind a candidate on whose views we know so little to be troubling. Hence, my questrion was in good faith, insofar as it was asking people who I assume share a general outlook with me why they aren't troubled by things that trouble me. I can accept a candidate who is - let's be polite - "squishy" on abortion, I can even accept a candidate who is half-hearted about affirmative action; as noted above, I would like Olympia Snowe to run in the primary, although I thereby pass no judgement on whether I want her to win. But Snowe has a ong and voluminous record on all sorts of issues that directly relate to the business of being President, which makes me a little more comfortable about the prospect of her candidacy. I would like Condi to run, but as with Snowe, I would stop short - far shorter than I would with Snowe, actually - of endorsing her until I know more about her views on relevant subjects.
The reality is that I am probably more conservative than either of the candidates floated here; my preference would be someone like Newt Gingrich, but without the asshole factor. But the reality is that someone's personal conduct DOES matter; it mattered that Clinton was untrustworthy, and it matters that Gingrich is a hypocrit who has never apologized. So we work with what we have.
In reality, I don't think there IS an ideal candidate waiting in the wings for 2008. I have an open mind on Rice, and I certainly do appreciate suggestions from those who do trust her of why I should too.
Any speculation on which old troll is the new hydra like blassingame/harvard gal/buck troll?
My money's on thersites.
(although quxxo's been strangely silent, but these posts are vile and ignorant where as quxxo's just annoying and narcissistic)
Also, the Instalanche doesn't always bring positive attention, clearly all the folks frustrated by Instapundit's lack of a comment section to ruin have clicked through to here to satisfy their primal need for territorial markings.
Also, Sec. Rice is too needed in her current role to become Vice President. A smarter choice would be to encourage former Sec. Colin Powell to unretire, it would show that Pres. Bush doesn't hold grudges and that Powell wasn't forced out as speculation suggested.
But I think all the health rumors swirling around Vice President Cheney are exaggerated and he'll be Vice President all the way up until the day that President George Allen is sworn in. (With the new Vice President Rice by his side).
I think Condi's major advantage is that she's perceived as highly electable. Pragmatic conservatives realize that a strong candidate who agrees with them most of the time is better than a weak candidate who agrees with them all of the time.
On the racial/gender issue, certainly there are racist or sexist conservatives out there but no where near as many as some liberals seem to think. For the great majority of conservatives political views are much more important - I've found that to be true even on the very far right discussion boards. For the extreme righties her position on abortion will probably be her biggest problem.
"Dr. Rice may be a bit squishy on abortion to satisfy a few ultra-conservatives, but no more so than the avereage democrat could satisfy NARAL or other extremist left wing groups"
I don't think that the "average democrat" candidate is an appropriate comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be, "Dr. Rice may be a bit squishy on abortion to satisfy a few ultra-conservatives, but no more so than Bob Casey Jr. upsets NARAL or other extremist left wing groups."
The average Democratic candidate is for abortion on demand. Some are for reasonable restrictions on abortion, and the only reason they get a pass from NARAL is because those organizations are genuinely and honestly terrified of the consequences of tarring a nominee too heavily. They're wrong about the issue, but they're not morons: they realize that a Democratic Congressman who is opposed to partial-birth abortion is better than a GOP Congressman who is opposed to abortion, period.
You have to realize, I think that it is not just that Rice is out of step with the fringe with the GOP on abortion, she is out of step with the vast bulk of the GOP on abortion. While there is considerable range of opinion on the matter - from mild regulation through to ban it outright, even the moderate wing is still more sceptical about abortion than Rice, even notwithstanding quotes posted above. Rice is willing to accomodate it, and that's fine. Is she willing to appoint replacements for Stevens and Ginsburg (who will likely retire on the next President's watch, pulling either a Sandy O'Connor or a Bill Brennan, one or the other) who will overrule Roe, Casey and (if it's still on the books) Stenberg?
Once those cases are off the books, the pernicious corruption of American politics that has stemmed from Roe will cease (or at least, shift to another venue), and moderates might have more of a shot at winning the Presidency. I'm not writing off Rice, but I would really need to have some pretty strong indications that she is not only opposed to abortion personally, but that she will fulfill the responsibility she would swear to undertake on election as the President of the United States, which is to end the constitutionalization of the abortion question.
Post a Comment