In a new poll conducted by Marist College and WNBC, a McCain-Rice ticket would beat a ticket that includes both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in New York — a state that reliably votes for the Democratic candidate. (In 2004, John Kerry beat President Bush there by nearly 20 points. In 2000, the margin between Al Gore and Bush was an even higher 25 points.)
But should McCain and Rice team up, the poll suggests the two Republicans would carry New York, defeating a Clinton-Obama ticket by 3 points (49-46 percent) and an Obama-Clinton ticket by 5 points (49-44 percent.)
April 10, 2008
McCain-Rice.
A surprisingly strong match.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
109 comments:
Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.
Anyone with two ounces of integrity and 1/2 a brain would never vote for Rice, a Bush subordinate and former Chevron exec. Give me a break! Does anyone know who Rice really is? Either the people polled were complete idiots without a shred of a clue or the pollsters just made up the results, for fun.
I really don't see Condi as a negative. Those who know much of anything about her and like her, like her. Those that know much of anything about her and don't like her won't vote for McCain no matter what.
Most people fall in neither category.
I'd really like to see it.
I'm suspicious of opinion polls, but I tend to agree with something Althouse said on the radio a while back that really, the veep is the veep and you pick whomever you have to pick to give the most lift to the ticket. If that's Rice, fine. For several reasons, I'm dubious as to whether Rice is a net plus for the ticket, but if she is a net plus, that's really all I care about.
Two things:
1) McCain is really old, so who he picks for VP is more importaint than it otherwise would be.
2) I never much liked McCain, but I adore Rice. For me she is a plus, but I never considered voting Democratic. Maybe she gets me to the polls instead of not votiong at all.
I think Dem strategists would (and should) be salivating at the prospect of Rice joining the ticket. I've long imagined the political ads that could just show her in an endless loop saying "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.'" And ABC News is reporting today that she was in on the NSC meetings "choreographing" CIA torture sessions. If McCain embraces the disgusting Bush legacy even more tightly in an ill-considered effort to neutralize Obama's or Clinton's race/gender advantage, he's doomed, no matter what polls say.
Anyone with two ounces of integrity and 1/2 a brain would never vote for Rice
It's a well known fact that people with only 2 ounces of integrity and 1/2 a brain are going for Hillary by a wide margin.
Those with more integrity and a whole brain might very well see the McCain/Rice ticket as very appealing for all kinds of reasons.
It would be interesting to see and hear Rice when she's able to find a bit of freedom from GWB. My guess is she's probably a lot more naturally closer to McCain.
Plus, her experience is weighty and her personal story is pretty rich. How can Obama's narrative match hers? She was friends with a girl that died in the Birmingham bombing. How could Hillary match her? Condi didn't need to use a husband to find success.
Personally, I think it would be fun if for no other reason than it would really shake up the election.
I also think Dr. Rice has more class than any of the other candidates combined. Class should be worth something.
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding. Descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today,"
If Obama said the African American community had a "birth defect" Hannity and Limbaugh would have pounced all over it and tried to discredit him as having an American hating chocolate chip on his shoulder.
If class means lying, warmongering, and playing Aunt Jemimah to massa Bush, then I guess I don't know what class is anymore!
And I love that money quote: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States'."
She is truly a piece of work.
P.S. She'll never join the ticket because she's too afraid that she'll be outed as the lesbian she is.
A month or so ago I would have been all over this.
Gawd-the whole affirmative action argument here.
Condi Rice is more qualified than both Hillary and Obama to be President.
Say you took all of their resumes to a completely neutral observer and said here are the current conditions who would you pick to be President?
Let alone Vice President?
But where would you go for that neutral observer?
Outer space?
In fact the real world and life is not fair.
It could be a HUGE mistake for the Republicans to chase after the affirmative action vote with say an idiotic choice like Palin for example.
Just what in the hell are those people thinking? [ We need Alaska, or a gal that use to be mayor of a couple of thousand on the tundra...]
Rice- she would rest on qualifications alone BUT - life isn't fair and with that experience comes BAGGAGE.
It really sucks but there it is.
That and the electoral college.
Condi would bring you nothing in that regard.
Watch Pennsylvania and maybe pick Ridge who's resume would also make both Hillary and Obama look not ready for prime time or run up the middle with Pawlenty.
Although something about Pawlenty doesn't sit well with me...
Maybe it's the experience-could he learn on the job?
maybe...
It just shows the depth of cynicism, and the absolute stupidity of Republicans, that they think Rice is an asset to the ticket. Rice was a horrible NSA and is a horrible Secretary of State. Can any of you name one thing she has achieved in her tenure? She is shackled with the unmitigated disaster that is and continues to be the Bush foreign policy. And she can't even claim she didn't have anything to do with it--she is responsible for most of it.
Have you checked how unpopular this president is. The less than a third of the country who still think Bush is doing a good job are going to vote for McCain because they are insane anyway. The 2/3 who are connected to reality are not going to want anyone on the ticket connected with this incompetent and disastrous administration.
You might as well suggest Cheney.
The vitriol towards Rice by the leftish commentators is all the assurance I need that she is the perfect choice.
Kovacs said...
"I've long imagined the political ads that could just show her in an endless loop saying 'I believe the title was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States."'"
That's fine, but that only plays to the very small number of people who seriously believe that that was some kind of damning admission, that the PDB was some kind of smoking gun whence the breadcrumbs could have been followed and the attacks prevented by a reasonable administration. I don't think anyone whose vote we ought to be worried about actually believes this; those who do are mainly already commited to writing in Dennis Kucinich or holding their noses and voting Democrat. It's groupthink to assume that what you think is damning evidence of malfeasance is also perceived as such across the board.
In the previous thread about Rice as a potential veep, I took issue with rcocean's contention that "Condi would also be able to attack Obama with impunity without the worry of being called a racist"; I thought such an assumption "far too optimistic. She will be branded, albeit in code words for the mass market, but explicitly by [some] ..., as a house nigger, a tool of the white man, an uncle tom, &c." Like a moth to the flame, ZPS writes above that Rice has "play[ed] Aunt Jemimah to massa Bush." So as it was written was it done...
Say you took all of their resumes to a completely neutral observer and said here are the current conditions who would you pick to be President?
Oh really? Never held an elected office. Academic/think tank type until elevated to NSA, then a run as Sec State with absolutely no foreign policy achievements during her tenure (how is that Israeli peace thing going?). Absolutely no experience in anything but foreign policy. And her academic background is in a dead nation state. She was a Soviet Union expert.
"If McCain embraces the disgusting Bush legacy even more tightly in an ill-considered effort..."
You wouldn't vote for him *anyway*.
That's the thing.
About a year ago when bloggers were putting up little Condi '08 banners, before she said she wouldn't do it, I can't say how many times someone explained that conservatives wouldn't vote for a black woman. Of course that's stupid and reflects the racism and prejudices of those making the claims rather than the people they are making claims about.
And now it's Bush Cooties.
Explaining why no one would vote for Condi when *you* wouldn't vote for Condi doesn't say much when *you* (whichever "you" you are) wouldn't even vote for McCain and have swallowed whole the bizarre spin that McCain is Bush Mark Two... (next thing, someone will claim Hillary is right-wing.)
The thing is that while the broad swathe of the political middle might not *like* Bush, they don't hate him. That BDS that's getting projected onto the larger population is a projection. So Bush Cooties? Probably not as big a campaign killer as those pushing the Bush Mark Two meme would like to think.
(how is that Israeli peace thing going?).
Yeah, like anyone else ever did (or could) solve that problem.
The vitriol towards Rice by the leftish commentators
Exept for zps, where is the vitriol.
I have not made one vitriolic comment about her. Unless you consider my belief that her tenure in the Bush administration has been an abject failure to be a vitriolic comment. I don't see how it is. You can certainly counter it by posting a list of her significant achievements as either NSA or SecState. It won't take long.
Cheney?
Other than making McCain look young and healthy... why not?
Again, those who hate him, hate him. They already aren't voting Republican no how, no way, not on a dare and not for money.
The hyperbole that can be expected to be directed toward Cheney would make the source look hateful, just as the hyperbole that could be expected to be directed at Condi will make the source look hateful and irrational.
Yeah, like anyone else ever did (or could) solve that problem.
Well maybe part of the problem is that Bush has announced loudly and proudly (not just once but several times) that he and Condi are going to solve it. Just a couple weeks ago he announced it was going to be the crowning achievement of his presidency. I guess he lowered his sites from democratizing the entire middle east.
It is that kind of hubris and completely unrealistic thinking and the grandiose plans that are announced and never followed up on that makes me say that Condi is such a horrible SecState. She should be whispering in Bush's ear, "Sir, that's crazy, we can't do that."
Synova-
Talk me into this....
What about campaign experience?
What about stump speeches and rousing the crowd?
Could Condi do that?
It's making me think of Adlai Stevenson in the inverse.
[ Although I just googled him and I did not know that at least he ran and won a term as governor of Illinois.]
Bush subordinate and former Chevron exec.
She was on Chevron Board, she wasn't an employee.
I used to like Condi a lot, but her recent Israeli - Arab chaing after Bush Legacy stuff has me concerned about her judgement.
As for personal bio and accomplishments, she has more than Obama and Hillary put together. She was the COO (Provost) and Stanford, the first woman, the first minority in that job. She opposed AA in tenure decisions. She balanced the budget. She was an academic superstar on a campus known for big names and big egos.
My Dem wife who likes McCain isnt hot (double minority etc) on Condi on the ticket, but agrees with me that a VP slot is the the right way for a woman or black to make it on the ticket.
playing Aunt Jemimah to massa Bush, then I guess I don't know what class is anymore!
That's why I want Rice on the ticket. It unmasks the inherent racism. The kind that hides behind claims of diversity but then gets almost orgiastic when freed to spout off against ideological opponents.
They'll say they're just trying to provoke. But that sort of stuff comes from somewhere. Whether it's deep-seated self-hatred or plain ol' deep seated hatred, the racial epithets will abound.
And look for real misogynism to boot. The folks that use progressivism to fight their own personal demons will find freedom to wallow in their hatred with Rice.
Bush as 'massa? Wow. An accomplished black woman is suddenly an Aunt Jemima? How sad, ZPS that you have no other category than this to assess the most powerful black woman in the world. Racism is always ugly to see.
Freder, what is your definition of a successful Secretary of State? It's kind of like being a successful javelin catcher. I would say that the State department is running much better under Rice than her immediate predecessors. Just compare Crocker to Bremer for starters.
I would have to agree that Rice's record as NSA is pretty abysmal.
The only qualification I would add is that given the flamboyant incompetence of the intelligence services she had to deal with, I'm not sure who would have done better.
"(how is that Israeli peace thing going?)"
Just ask all Condi's predecessors since 1948.
Paddy O.
Good point.
It would take that-
Obama lost because they are racists argument/sword right out of the media's hands.
That's the message they want to lecture us about and send round to the rest of the world.
She is qualified like practically no one else.
What the hell am I so scared of-take the fight to them.
You're right.
ZPS said:
"P.S. She'll never join the ticket because she's too afraid that she'll be outed as the lesbian she is."
Isn't that Hillary's problem too, at least with men?
How can zps think that Rice is a lesbian (not that there is anything wrong with that). Doesn't zps watch 30 Rock? Jack was dating Rice off and on for the first season. Jack would never allow himself to be used as a beard.
Condi would be the perfect choice, since Colin Powell has decided not to seek political office.
Obama would lose his ability to play the race card. And the whole "lets elect Obama so we can feel good about race" goes out the window.
She's supposed to liberal on social/domestic policy - but conservatives will vote Republican no matter. This gives McCain running room to go over the centrists.
I was unaware that the election was tomorrow. Poll results will be stale be then. Much will happen between now and November. I interpret some of the poll result to be disgust with the Hillary!-Obama sniping.
I did read a news article yesterday that quoted Rice as saying she has no interest in the VP slot and that she's going back to Stanford.
If Obama said the African American community had a "birth defect" Hannity and Limbaugh would have pounced all over it and tried to discredit him as having an American hating chocolate chip on his shoulder.
3rd way: I think you need to read the quote you pasted just a little bit closer. I read the "birth defect" as being the problem associated with the birth of our Nation. Not that she thinks there is a birth defect with being an African American. I also suspect that you have left something out in between the two paragraphs you posted. A link to the original would be nice. :-)
Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding. Descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today,"
I would love for Condi to run, but do think that her close association with the Bush White House would leave McCain's campain on the defensive and put the concentration on Bush instead of the candidate who is running for office....McCain.
The projection...
Jeebus from the liberal commenters here-
They won't vote for an African American/ Aunt Jemimah,unmarried women/lesbian because damn it they are pretty gosh darn sure that Republicans /they won't.
What a bunch of...schmugs.
I'm not keen on Condi for VP. But it does put front and center that in Bush's term that two blacks were the official face of US to the world. And it does put a black female on ticket which undercuts some of the "we're making history" spin sure to surround the Democratic ticket. It undercuts the premise that blacks or females can't have an impressive resume. Its a bold play which will be pitched by Dems as cynical. But no matter who he selects they will trash.
However, if McCain is only going to be a one-term prez it makes her the presumptive front-runner in 2012. Just think about that for a moment. And this may be a fascinating way for McCain to use Rev Wright and claims of racism & sexism against the dems.
let's see, ZPS already called Rice "Aunt Jemimah" and a lesbian. What's next? You haven't yet disparaged her for being a woman. How about calling her a cunt or something?
Just because you're a nancy boy, ZPS, doesn't make you not a racist, sexist or homophobe.
And Freder, just admit that you hate America already. You're so amusingly predictable in your disdain for this country. You're like a Commedia della Arte character.
The polls don't mean a lot at this stage of the game. If McCain/Rice makes NY close, then it is curtains for the Democrats. How will they be able to take swing states when they have to expend resources on states like New York? New York is the kind of state Democrats must win, but ought to be able count-on with no effort.
ZPS said If class means lying, warmongering, and playing Aunt Jemimah to massa Bush, then I guess I don't know what class is anymore!
Quite an observation there ZPS. Well to your credit you showed some restraint and at least didn't call her a house nigger.
Always love to see a liberal's mask slip off.
Freder saidRice was a horrible NSA and is a horrible Secretary of State.
Indeed. We need some real bright bulbs in there like Berger and Albright. That way we can go back to bombing Balkan counties and doing to the two-step with the Norks.
Freder Frederson said...
And her academic background is in a dead nation state. She was a Soviet Union expert.
Yah, absolutely no chance that'll be applicable any time soon...
Who's tapped into the 'Reality Based Community', now?
-kd
It would be nice to have some real talent and brains in the contest. She speaks Russian, German, French and Spanish, and plays the piano at near-concert level, and has REAL experience (instead of ducking hypothetical bullets), plus she has a balanced perspective on most topics.
Her dad was a Presbyterian minister who switched to the Republican party because the Jim Crow Democrats wouldn't let him register in Alabama.
It would make the race very very interesting, but I would feel sorry for her when the left unveiled their necklacing tactics for anyone who leaves their fold.
Rice was a Democrat until 1982 when she couldn't put up with Jimmy Carter's Henry VIth act in regards to Terror-ahn.
McCain-Rice vs. Obama-Clinton, would be a riot. Let's hope it happens. It would either save the country or destroy it, but it would be fun. Alas, she probably wouldn't run. But maybe she will!
By way of clarification, ZPS' postscript is intended to refer to Hillary.
I'm sorry to inject actual facts.
Here. Plans can change, of course. Maybe Rice has tickets to Stanford on American Airlines, for example.
I forgot about 30 Rock! Maybe Condi doesn't bump uglies with her lady friends.
P.S. My Aunt Jemimah comment was cheap and shallow...and tired. It's already been said a million times and I'm sorry I was so predictable.
She has enough negatives attached to her for carrying out and/or initiating some of the most blunderous foreign policy decisions in the history of this country, so that should be enough to discredit her.
So do you conservatives prefer horrific blunders from Condi or lies and no experience whatsoever from Hillary and/or Obama?
P.P.S. What troubles me the most is that I see a lot of greatness in Condi...super smart, sophisticated, and of course very well tempered. She deserves better than the choices she's made for herself.
Dust Bunny Queen - You can read, or spin, that quote anyway you like. I took it verbatim from the Milwaukee Journal it matches the other sources I found on the web that published it.
No matter how you read the "birth defect" quoute does anyone doubt that if it was attributed to Obama it wouldn't have been spun as anti-American?
I had hoped Condi was elevated to the VP slot back in the 2004 election.
Now I agree she is too strongly tied to Iraq struggles. BUT her minority status could make it a dilemma and a challenge to the diversity-loving DEMS.
MCCain does not really have any candidates to choose from who would guarantee his winning a swing state or two (except maybe my #1 choice Rudy Guiliani). Rudy puts NY, NJ and PA in play for McCain IMHO.
P.P.P.S. I am not the leftish liberal people have been calling me here. I'll be voting for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. I love Chuck Hagel, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich, for a variety of reasons!
Just think of me as the new 'cruel neutrality'....(since Ann removed that tag from her description- guess she's tired of pretending.)
You mean like Obama's statements that slavery is America's original sin?
Frankly, I prefer birth defect. It was something wrong that can be fixed. Is she supposed to ignore History? Does anyone not think that slavery was wrong?
Coming from a religious background that includes a couple of years of Bible school after high school... Original Sin has a specific meaning. For one thing... it NEVER goes away. The entire concept is that Original Sin does not require ANY action, no "sin" by you or by me to count us as guilty of it. It's guilt we are born with before we've a chance to so much as breathe. It needs to be forgiven but it is our default state of being.
It's a terrible analogy.
Though the way racism is described these days it doesn't require any actual racism either, just being born the wrong color... born in the oppressor class.
You know, when you are in a hole you should stop digging. Unless you want some Chinese food.
Kirby Olson - It would be nice to have some real talent and brains in the contest. She speaks Russian, German, French and Spanish, and plays the piano at near-concert level, and has REAL experience (instead of ducking hypothetical bullets), plus she has a balanced perspective on most topics.
Lets not forget the genius running other identity politics candidates with the "inspiring biographies and interesting talents" diversity mavens within the REpublican party always gush over when the person they tout has dark skin and/or no penis...
How about "the Sharecroppers Daughter" instead?
How about a black guy with an inspiring biography who ice skates
and is a trained singer who plays the piano. A PhD who is very articulate and committed to deep Christian values, so much he disowned a gay daughter. Who has extensive foreign policy experience. Who, like Rice, has never been elected to any office and doesn't know anything outside foreign policy.
Plus, has had the experience of running against Obama before as the parachuted-in Republican house negro...Alan Keyes. Who is a loon, but would be more entertaining to voters than Condi.
************
Rice would be sort of an instant suicide pact by McCain.
A signal to all that the ONLY thing that has to matter to Americans is two people on the same ticket who believe that only foreign policy matters, all the side "domestic stuff" is not worthy of their attention and trivial compared to the Global Power role America must play. The welfare of the Noble Iraqi People is Everything, Americans whining about lesser matters like jobs, fiscal crisis, loss of ability to compete, mass immigration, healthcare, collapsing dollar, energy and food costs exploding, schools and industries gutted need to be ignored for another 4 years until the Noble Freedom-loving Iraqi people are served well, first...
Face it, nothing signals "4 more Years of Bush" quite like picking up his #1 advisor despite her many failures. With all her Bush baggage.
Personally, I'd love Rice as VP, but I also have a hard time believing her ties to Bush wouldn't weigh McCain down.
On the other hand, in reply to the inevitable attacks, you could always use Hoosier's retort: Indeed. We need some real bright bulbs in there like Berger and Albright.
Her biggest negatives are that she's a diplomat and an intellectual, not a wheelin' dealin' politician. She's never been elected. She's somewhat pro-choice. Hard-core conservatives and fundamentalists will grumble, but they won't defect.
On the plus side:
McCain simply cannot pick a white guy as VP, as Clinton and Obama will almost both surely be on the other side. He must defuse the race, gender, and age issues. Rice does that. A triple play!
She peels some black and female voters away from the Democrats and will help in states where there's a large black population.
McCain will be blamed for Bush's Iraq policy anyway, so picking Rice is a wash re: Iraq.
She's ready for the top spot. A fearsomely tough workaholic, she's negotiated with scurvy dogs like Putin and Assad. Whether she's done a good job behind closed doors, I don't know, but neither Dem. candidate has gone toe-to-toe with the bad guys.
She can also give a piano recital in Pyongyang, if necessary.
The best reason to want her on the ticket will be to watch the debates between her and Sen. Obama. She will devour him.
The best reason to want her on the ticket will be to watch the debates between her and Sen. Obama. She will devour him.
She'd debate the VP-candidate. If it was Hillary, boy would that be fun to watch. To start with, Condi could tick off the 3 am calls she's taken, then invite Hillary to do the same. Man, what I wouldn't give to watch that!
Good afternoon, friends. Mr. Counter-Intuitive here, guest posting for Michael_H while he suffers through the final stages of Form 1040 preparation.
The response from the lefties to the idea of Condi Rice joining the McCain ticket is telling, in a reverse manner.
If Rice were truly a poor choice, and weakened the ticket, then the lefties would eagerly welcome and encourage the Rice candidacy, as it would increase the probability of the McCain ticket being defeated.
The opposite seems to be true: The lefty commentators are pointing out reasons why adding Rice to the McCain ticket is a bad idea.
Therefore, those commentators must actually believe that Rice would strengthen the McCain ticket, possibly resulting in its victory, and are hopeful that an anti-Rice buzz will keep her off of the ticket.
Good night and good luck.
I think she would be a terrible VP choice, by the way.
McCain simply cannot pick a white guy as VP
So what you're saying is, she is the only black Republican (other than Colin Powell) you can think of.
I know they are few and far between but there are a few. Alphonso Jackson is out--he's probably going to jail. But you still have Michael Steele and JC Watts. Both are much more conservative and actually have accomplished something politically--not been abject failures.
Therefore, those commentators must actually believe that Rice would strengthen the McCain ticket, possibly resulting in its victory, and are hopeful that an anti-Rice buzz will keep her off of the ticket.
You've been reading too much Br'er Rabbit.
If I actually thought that me writing on this silly blog actually would affect the choice of McCain's running mate, maybe such a Machivellian scheme would occur to me. But I have no such illusions about my importance.
Condi could tick off the 3 am calls she's taken, then invite Hillary to do the same. Man, what I wouldn't give to watch that!
"Condi, this is Laura. George is drunk again. I don't know what to do. Help me."
Note, that this is vitriol aimed at the dry drunk Bush, not Condi or Laura.
George said...
"She peels some black and female voters away from the Democrats and will help in states where there's a large black population."
I saw one commenter - I'd credit but can't remember who - suggest that it's not so much that a female or minority candidate would help with those demographics, but they'd counter the reverse Bradley effect. You know, soccer moms who would vote GOP but who want to prove to themselves (and perhaps friends) that they would vote for a black or a woman. I hope such people don't exist, but I suspect they do.
"McCain will be blamed for Bush's Iraq policy anyway, so picking Rice is a wash re: Iraq."
Well, they'll try to. I don't think they'll have much success, but if we think that they will, then sure, that concern evaporates.
"The best reason to want her on the ticket will be to watch the debates between her and Sen. Obama. She will devour him."
I suppose that's one way to disprove the lesbian meme.
MadisonMan said...
"I'm sorry to inject actual facts."
I was unaware that the election was tomorrow. Things said today may be stale be then. Much will happen between now and November.
Here's a link to the pdf of the poll which shows that McCain does within the margin of error against both Democratic candidates in New York without a named VP selection.
He narrowly loses to Clinon and narrowly defeats Obama which seems to be well within the margin of error which I'm not bothering to look up because in both cases it's less than 5%.
Clinton 48% McCain 46%
Obama 46% McCain 48%
New York.
Marist Poll PDF
But I have no such illusions about my importance.
The hell you don't.
Simon, it took me a while, but :)
Simon - You know, soccer moms who would vote GOP but who want to prove to themselves (and perhaps friends) that they would vote for a black or a woman. I hope such people don't exist, but I suspect they do.
They didn't exist when Alan Keyes ran in Illinois.
And Michael Steele's affirmative action bomus BINGO points and "inspiring biography" got shit when they ran him in MD, and Steele was fairly well-liked and a previously elected Lt Governor.
******************
George - McCain simply cannot pick a white guy as VP, as Clinton and Obama will almost both surely be on the other side. He must defuse the race, gender, and age issues. Rice does that. A triple play!
Few things are more insipid than a Republican who believes everything the Democrats have said about identity politics and class, race, gender, and victimization "bonus points" actually existing. With "inspiring biographies". Then talks about triple plays.
Perhaps almost as insipid and damaging as a "Diversity Queen" from HR informing the hiring manager in a highly competitive business that they simply cannot pick a white person for a position where 3 white men and two white women within the firm are well-qualified, so they must "reach-out" and find some black or hispanic women two-fer or three-fer similar to the Diversity Queen herself who was hired on similar criteria back when the stock price and profits were double what they are since the Diversity Queen began her multiculti quest to "improve things".
95% of voters polled said, if the election were held tomorrow they'd be very surprised.
"A signal to all that the ONLY thing that has to matter to Americans is two people on the same ticket who believe that only foreign policy matters, all the side "domestic stuff" is not worthy of their attention and trivial compared to the Global Power role America must play. The welfare of the Noble Iraqi People is Everything, Americans whining about lesser matters like jobs, fiscal crisis, loss of ability to compete, mass immigration, healthcare, collapsing dollar, energy and food costs exploding, schools and industries gutted need to be ignored for another 4 years"
Certainly the Republicans believe it. That's why they nominated McCain. Conservative Repubs bitched about him, but now they are falling in line & will accept anything - even a Lieberman VP.
Cedarford--
I think the days of the GOP and Dems. always nominating four white guys are over. From now on, there's always going to be a mix of races and genders on the tickets. The country has changed.
I agree with you about the business hiring practices.
Anyway, check out this George Wallace ad from '68. Different world back then.
I don't see Condi as President. She's obviously very intelligent, and certainly (given her biography and party affiliation) tough, but she's got very little experience as a politician. The President needs to be able to get things done, at home and abroad; I think Condi, for all her intelligence, would be worse at that than Bush has been.
Since I think she'd make a poor President, I don't think picking her for VP would be a good idea.
Well maybe part of the problem is that Bush has announced loudly and proudly (not just once but several times) that he and Condi are going to solve it.
Gee so did Bill Clinton and his bestes buddy Yasser.
Yep that worked out well.
Obama and Rice should get down on their knees and thank their lucky stars they were born in America. But I forgot, a Black's middle name is Resentment.
Of course McCain has had an easy go recently while the Democrats have been focused on each other, so I'm not sure what value a poll right now has.
It's what? Seven months before the election? Go back seven months ago (September) and it was obvious that Hillary vs. Rudy was inevitable, according to the polls. Obama was double digits behind Hillary and McCain was running fourth in the GOP field (behind Rudy, Fred and Mitt.)
Condi has a nice resume but has demonstrated remarkably poor skills as a leader. She was terrible as NSA and only claims as Secretary of State is that she doesn't suck as bad as many in the past.
I once again push Michael Steele for the simple reason that he's a rock solid conservative and can explain conservative principles well.
Historical reality is that the VP pick has little positive impact on the presidential candidate. The notion that the pick itself will garner votes is silly. Having an effective campaigner will be far more effective. (Having a poor campaigner, though, can be very damaging.)
Eli, isn't it partisans of a particular party - particularly internet partisans of that party - that keep telling us that it's all over, that as a result of the people's opinion of a certain President, that President's party and anyone it nominates are going to be taken to the cleaners, and so forth? And which party is that, again?
I would vote for Rice, but:
1) she's not interested
2) its too early for polls like this to have any merit
She was terrible as NSA and only claims as Secretary of State is that she doesn't suck as bad as many in the past.
She's the best Secretary of State we've had since Reagan... of course, that still leaves plenty of room for her to suck. The last 20 years have been pretty lousy where American diplomatic efforts are concerned. Maybe that's because people no longer feel threatened by the Soviets and thus don't need to cozy up to us anymore.
the most powerful black woman in the world.
After Oprah.
Every eight years, at the most, the Aegean stables need a major cleaning. Happened in 2000, and it needs to happen again in 2008. Otherwise I'd really support Rice. She's just in the wrong place right now.
Johnny Horton, however, has a solution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSt0NEESrUA
I'm still waiting for McCain to take that fishing trip to the Kenai!
The only way to believe this would be to believe the NY likes Rice a whole lot. And I don't believe it. She's as close to Bush as Cheney is. I'd have to see it to believe it.
given the scorn heaped on Dr Rice from our lefties, my thought is that she would be a good choice--i do tend to be a contrarian.
ZPS--you at least tried to apologize for your totally distasteful and racist comment earlier. It was noted and appreciated.
As for Dr. Rice's political skills: being chancellor of a California university probably provides more training in politics than even an elected positon.
john said...
"Every eight years, at the most, the Aegean stables need a major cleaning. Happened in 2000, and it needs to happen again in 2008. Otherwise I'd really support Rice. She's just in the wrong place right now."
Well, that smuggles in, does it not, one or two tacit assertions. Let's stipulate that, as you say, a change in control at the White House every eight years is a healthy thing. That was the thinking behind the 2d amendment, after all. With that in mind, for you to say that Rice as a veep violates that principle, it seems to me that you've got to be asserting that McCain as President wouldn't be a changing of the guard, and/or that Rice has so much discretionary control over foreign affairs that she can be regarded as the incumbent. I don't think that's an accurate way to think of how the executive branch works; "[e]xecutive branch actors are intermediaries for the executive power, and surrogates for the President in whom that power is vested by the Constitution." Do we assume that a lawyer's arguments on behalf of his client represent her own substantive views? And it seems to me that a lawyer has far more discretion than do senior members of the executive branch (discretion would seem to be inversely proportional to distance from the President).
Even if I agree with you that the guard needs changed after eight years, the guard will be changed no matter who wins this election. The Democrats are trying to sell McCain as running for Bush's third term, but that desperate claim is very silly, and will founder.
Without looking I wonder what any of us would list as the most recent examples of Rice in the news, starting now and working backwards.
I don't pay the best attention but I do at least get the big stories. I think she was involved in the latest Palestine/Israel/Middle East peace conference thingy. And I seem to remember something about State Department wusses being upset about being asked to take up the diplomatic (ie., non-military) effort in Iraq and claiming she wasn't sticking up for them, or something. Before that?
I assume she's been working, but she really hasn't been in the news much.
When she was in the news the usual suspects hated her while most people were impressed and, frankly, liked her cool boots.
And anyone who thinks she came across poorly while being punished by the Senate investigation thingy doesn't understand just how much the average person looks at that, with the Senators doing their endless speeches disguised as questions while whomever they are abusing sits in the low chair looking like that poor kid being picked on by adults they can't talk back to that all of us were... once.
Condi scored big when she stood up to the bullies.
But that was about how long ago we saw much of her. Wasn't it?
Yet another of McCain's fawning scribes does him a solid.
Take it away, Josh:
When John McCain changes his position on relief for homeowners after two weeks, it's called 'refining' his plan.
No "flip-flops" here. Nosiree, keep moving folks. Not when the media's in the tank for McCain.
Condi is more of a candidate for war criminal than candidate for Vice President.
She was one of the torture planners in the Bush-Cheney White House where they discussed suspending the US Constitution (they swore to uphold).
The part other nations will find indictable is their detailed planning for torturing. 108 people have died under US detention and interrogation/torture.
Simon,
The analogy was not "changing of the guard" it was "cleaning out the stables". There is a big difference, in my mind. Now, whether McCain is responsible for some of the horse shit, that's a good question, and I believe it is similar to questions you have posed previously.
Technically, as part of the legislature, he is not. As part of the executive, Rice is. I don't mean to say she is the "incumbent" but she does have a stable.
But McCain would not be first choice for POTUS either. Neither do we as voters get to vote for our first choice, we only get to vote for who is on the ballot. I do agree that attempts to call a McCain presidency a third Bush term will not succeed, but that is all the more reason for not having Rice on the ticket. Nothing personal about Condi, we just need to totally scrub the WH out.
I appreciate your take.
Alpha -
"The media is in the tank for McCain"??
Jees, for a minute I thought you wrote "the media is in the tank for McCain". God, how silly of me. I need to clean the old bifocals so I can read the screen better.
There, thats clearer. Heh.
AlphaLiberal said...
"Condi is more of a candidate for war criminal than candidate for Vice President. She was one of the torture planners in the Bush-Cheney White House where they discussed suspending the US Constitution (they swore to uphold)."
Do you have some evidence that the "Bush-Cheney White House," including or excluding Rice but meaning specific individuals, "discussed suspending the US Constitution ... [that ]they swore to uphold"?
John, I understand the distinction you're drawing; I only disagree because it seems to me that if Rice really does have substantial control over foreign policy in her present position, something has gone wrong, and without that level of substantial control, it seems to me that it isn't her shit that we're talking about cleaning up.
Oh Simon.....
Herakles did not differentiate. He just let those rivers do their thing.
Regards,
I am with Joe at 6:i8. I am still pushing Steele.
McCain's experience and Southwest background; Steele's freshness, strong but pleasant personality, ability to sell complex concepts,and Eastern Catholic background.
What's wrong with that ticket?
Do you have some evidence that the "Bush-Cheney White House," including or excluding Rice but meaning specific individuals, "discussed suspending the US Constitution ... [that ]they swore to uphold"?
Yes. See Yoo memos and discussions at these meetings, suspension of habeas corpus, legal weasling to enable suspension of 4th amendment domestic military operations.
Assuming you have a curious mind and don't robotically dismiss criticism of your side.
On the 4th Amendment:
Mukasey Refuses to Say Yoo Fourth Amendment Memo Withdrawn
If someone betrays their oath of office can you see where people might think they have a credibility problem?
via Volokh:
What to make of this depends mostly on what you think the phrase "domestic military operations" might mean, and more specifically, what "military operations" are. If "domestic military operations" refers to actual active battlefields in the United States -- think the Battle of Gettysburg, or the British attack on Washington in the War of 1812, etc. -- then I think that conclusion is very likely correct.
AlphaLiberal said...
"[Do I have evidence that the Bush-Cheney White House discussed suspending the US Constitution?] Yes. See Yoo memos and discussions at these meetings, suspension of habeas corpus, legal weasling to enable suspension of 4th amendment domestic military operations."
I read the Yoo memos when they were declassified. They may be right or wrong, mileage will vary, but they don't say anything about "suspending the US Constitution." I'd assumed we all did, but I guess not. As to suspending habeas corpus, that's very different to "suspending the US Constitution" (the latter specifically provides for the suspension of the former, but doesn't and couldn't provide for its own suspension). So far, no little. What else do you have?
The standard for legality is "I don't like this."
The standard for proof is "I don't like them."
It's in bad movies that someone says, "What are our options?" and then punishes those who list them all, even the ones that are not morally acceptable, or "What are the legal limits?" and then accuses the person given that assignment of advocating operations at those limits.
What is *legal* is shooting dead every non-uniformed combatant after a summary military hearing *in the field.* A discussion of *legality* or any one person's understanding and opinion about what is legal or what laws and legal rights do or don't apply doesn't even imply that other considerations aren't given priority.
I hope that torture was discussed in the oval office because in order to say "this is our policy" it's necessary to say "this is *not* our policy" and to do that it must be discussed.
What's wrong with that ticket?
Seasoning? And I don't mean salt and pepper, they have plenty of that, in more ways than one.
What else do you have?
Well, it was just last week that Alpha screeched about Ann not covering the John McCain plagiarism charge, but then he vanished for a few days and hasn't mentioned it since.
How's that charge comin', Alpha?
Rice would almost make me consider voting for McCain. Yeah, I like her boots. But that's more than I like about the other three candidates.
How's that charge comin', Alpha?
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, those are his charges and if you don't like them, he'll have others I am sure.
If you fling enough poo, sooner or later some will stick.
Heck, HD, we already got the three-year-old canard about how the 108 people who died in US custody were all murdered on White House orders. What more do you want?
playing Aunt Jemimah to massa Bush
fuck you.
sorry Althouse, delete away.
Exept for zps, where is the vitriol.
I have not made one vitriolic comment about her.
Not good enough, Freder. You're constantly ragging on all of us for not denouncing cedarford. I'm waiting for you to tear zps a new one. If you don't, you're complicit, by your own rules.
What is *legal* is shooting dead every non-uniformed combatant after a summary military hearing *in the field.*
Please explain under what interpretation of U.S. or international law this is legal. It is most certainly illegal under the UCMJ, which every member of the U.S. military must abide by. And as the Drill SGT will have to admit to you, soldiers are duty bound to disobey illegal orders--and prevent others from carrying them out--even if they come directly from the President.
I read the Yoo memos when they were declassified. They may be right or wrong, mileage will vary, but they don't say anything about "suspending the US Constitution."
Of course they don't, Yoo may be a lot of things (a war criminal, dishonest, disdainful of our system of government and constitution), but he is not stupid. What the memos lay out is an absolute ridiculously expansive view of executive power where Yoo argues that the President can ignore the Constitution and duly ratified treaties under his war powers. It also ignores internationally accepted and legal definitions of torture to so narrowly define torture that it completely turns U.S. law and the Constitution on its head.
If I've not denounced people, my apologies in advance. It could be that I'm not reading what they write. Some posters' words really aren't worth bothering with.
Not good enough, Freder. You're constantly ragging on all of us for not denouncing cedarford. I'm waiting for you to tear zps a new one. If you don't, you're complicit, by your own rules.
Well, I can't police everyone. I denounce Cedarford because he has personally attacked me and even suggested I deserve to be lynched. And his racism and anti-semitism is virulent and continual.
ZPS did write an offensive little screed, but I think it was an attempt at satire--poorly executed. And he did apologize.
According to the Geneva Conventions, Freder.
The thing is, our rules for ourselves and our policies do not allow that. Just try to get your mind around the fact that we don't *have* to do what we'd be legally entitled to do. It may not be moral. It may not be something that we're willing to do.
Legality is not the same as right or wrong and discussions or even a MEMO about legalities or limits also does not define right or wrong or even policy choices.
According to the Geneva Conventions, Freder.
The thing is, our rules for ourselves and our policies do not allow that.
Wrong about the Geneva Conventions as I have explained patiently and repeatedly here (and I have the backing of the SC on that one).
And it is not just "our rules and policies" that do not allow it it is the Uniform Code of Military Justice--which is the law, enacted by Congress and signed by the President. A soldier who violates it can be charged, tried, convicted and even executed under it.
You claimed, "What is *legal* is shooting dead every non-uniformed combatant after a summary military hearing *in the field.*" It is not. It is illegal, and in fact a capital offense, under U.S. law, military and civilian. It is also illegal under the laws of war, particularly the Geneva Conventions.
You are simply completely wrong.
Do you know why I don't believe you, Freder?
I don't believe you because of the common insistence that this war is illegal, because of insistence that Bush should be impeached, because of the insistences that the only reason he isn't impeached is because the Democrats in congress are part of the conspiracy, because of all the silliness that does really amount to "I don't like this, therefore it is illegal." It's like crying wolf again and again and I have learned that any claim of law and illegalities is most certainly a pile of manure.
I don't accept that some international authority outside our process of election and right to self rule can decide what is legal or illegal. The entire concept of international law is a fallacy at heart and about as reasonable as Spanish courts trying Rawandan war criminals. It's BS of a most fundamental nature.
I can declare my own self the King of the World and it won't make it true.
Treaties signed should be upheld but they aren't law *either*. They are agreements.
Rules of engagement and the UCMJ are laws but not immutable ones. They can be changed just as we can change and modify and purge any laws from our civilian legal codes. (Such as take out the ignored sodomy ones to make DTL happy.)
The only immutable legal standard we've got is the Constitution and that's actually somewhat unique in the world. But it's still only immutable because we all agree that it ought to be. And it still only applies to *us*, to those it covers and are governed by it.
Though it would sort of be a hoot to take Canada to court for violating the First Amendment. No?
Here is what I think is the relevant part of the Geneva convention...
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So, what this means is that if a person fits into the above description, then he is immune to being punished for killing his enemy on the battlefield. If a person is not covered by the above. Then they are not a legal combatant and can be prosecuted for whatever they have done. If they kill a soldier, then it counts as murder and they can be executed for it. The UCMJ most certainly allows the death penalty.
Do you know why I don't believe you, Freder?
You make claims on this topic with such conviction that I used to believe you. I don't know that much, so your bravado had me believing you knew what you were talking about.
But then, I observed you doing the same thing on a topic I do know something about. Making forceful claims on fundamental points that were obviously wrong, and then belittling people when called on it.
Your credibility is gone as far as I'm concerned (not that you care, I'm sure). As far as I'm concerned, you're just a blowhard.
Then they are not a legal combatant and can be prosecuted for whatever they have done. If they kill a soldier, then it counts as murder and they can be executed for it. The UCMJ most certainly allows the death penalty.
I am not disputing that at all.
Synova's claim that a field trial and summary execution is legal. It is not. It is illegal under Geneva and under U.S. law (both civilian law and the UCMJ). Geneva certainly differentiates legal and illegal combatants, but even illegal combatants are entitled to due process (see Hamdan).
Our UCMJ (which is not merely a rule or policy but the law) strictly prohibits the killing (or even mistreatment) of prisoners under any circumstances--regardless of whether they are legal combatants or not. Field commanders have no legal authority to order the execution of prisoners, no matter what their status.
I don't accept that some international authority outside our process of election and right to self rule can decide what is legal or illegal.
Well, true enough, but a ratified treaty doesn't meet that description - to be a treaty, it must have been ratified through the Article II process wherein we exercise our right to self-rule. We can exercise it by abrogating a treaty, too. Of course, it's also true that treaties don't necessarily have the force of domestic law by themselves (that's the heart of the Medellin case decided recently, and most will need enacting legislation to be anything more than a promise within sovereigns. But you don't need self-execution here, because in 18 U.S.C. § 2441, Congress has enacted legislation giving violation of certain treaties domestic legal force as crimes.
Clarification: the first para of my post above was quoting Synova. Sorry 'bout that, I forgot the quotation marks and attribution.
True enough.
It seems to me, however, that enough people view international opinion, law, etc., as authoritative that they view ratification as a duty putting the concept of authority completely backwards.
So Kyoto, for example, is a standard that we're violating even if we haven't signed it.
Certainly, *obviously*, I haven't studied law. This is more of a who serves who conceptual meta issue. I think it's dangerous. I think it's dangerous in the way that accepting that only approved speech is free speech is dangerous, or how accepting a definition of racism separated from racist ideas or actions would be dangerous if we go ahead and let it be redefined that way... only on a larger scale because it deals with much larger things.
As much as I tend these days toward international interventionism, I see a real danger in the simple acceptance of the idea of international law. That, itself, is more of a threat to sovereignty than armies could ever be. It gives it up without a fight and without a thought. Opens the door to tyrants and invites them in.
The UN is a fabulous example but look at how many people just love it.
They LOVE the idea of being ruled by some genocidal despot from the third world who's been appointed to sit judgment over them.
How messed up is that?
It's right, within the limits of our Constitution, to expect those around us to comply with rules they didn't vote for.
Extrapolate that to international issues and it is NOT right to expect any country to comply with the rules they didn't vote for, but I think that so many people have such a superficial understanding of democracy that they figure that nations have an obligation to go along with majority *world* opinion.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
"It's right, within the limits of our Constitution, to expect those around us to comply with rules they didn't vote for."
Right. That's part of the concept of institutional settlement.
Post a Comment