The Big 3 being the three big global issues of our time: the Middle East, the denuclearization of Korea, and the situation in Darfur.
Sec. Rice has become increasingly vocal about the need to end the strife in Sudan, giving a sobering but stirring speech on the matter to the Africa Society yesterday where she received several standing ovations and was presented with an award for her commitment to peace in the region:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday raised the threat of more international sanctions against Sudan if the government did not stop military operations in the Darfur region and unconditionally accept a United Nations peacekeeping force.
Condi will visit the Middle East this coming week:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Saudi Arabia, Egypt Israel and the Palestinian territories next week to discuss the possibility of new openings for peace, the State Department announced.
She would consult with leaders “who have a vision for a more moderate, peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous Middle East,” said the department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack.
In addition to the Israel-Palestinian dispute, McCormack said Rice will seek to move her democracy agenda forward and discuss and threats to stability and moderation in the region, including Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah.
Followed by a trip to Asia to get the Six Party Talks restarted:
?U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Asia soon to push for the resumption of the stalled six-party talks, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday.
The Secretary also tackled another big issue: football.? Here’s what Condi said on who she would like to see make it to the Superbowl:
“I found the Saints’ victory last night really stirring, you know, to see New Orleans come back that way. It was really, really exciting. And aside from all of the hoopla and all of the ceremony, I actually think New Orleans is just a really good football team. And I sure would have picked Reggie Bush first in the draft.”
May all of her hopes come true!
September 28th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I think what we need here on Race42008 is someone to tout a potential candidacy and the recent accomnplishments of Governor Jeb Bush, who is about as likely to end up a contender in 2008 as Secretary Rice.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I would have to respectfully disagree with you here, Republius. I think Sec. Rice and Gov. Jeb Bush are on completely different levels as far as ’08 potential candidacies go.
The differences between Sec. Rice and Gov. Bush are:
A). There really isn’t any notable public demand for Gov. Bush to run. When he said “I don’t want to run,” everybody pretty much said “Okay” and turned their heads. But in spite of Sec. Rice’s denials of interest, she continually polls near, and more often, at the top of polls, she is still being widely discussed as a potential contender, there is a large and burgeoning Draft Rice movement that claims tens of thousands of active volunteers who have put out radio/tv ads, who have raised an impressive amount of funds, who have already bought road-side billboards, and who regularly make their presence known at GOP conventions and get-togethers both large and small across the nation.
B). Gov. Bush is heavily domestic policy centralized, whereas Sec. Rice is extremely strong on foreign policy and national security–the two top issues of ’08.
C). Gov. Bush’s last name, unfortunately trivial as that may be, does carry a lot of baggage and the United States just doesn’t want another “Bush”. Sec. Rice, on the other hand, is seen as a newcomer to Washington (even though she’s been around since the Reagan administration), she’s fresh, energetic, and vibrant, and has that kind of optimistic, clean-slate feeling about her.
I think Sec. Rice is far more likely to be drafted into the race than Gov. Bush, merely because she’s got an incredible chance at actually winning both the primary elections and the general election, she has both domestic and (especially) foreign policy strengths, she’s already very familiar with the inner workings of the White House and already has built up good relationships with other world leaders and dignitaries and would be able to hit the ground running in 2009 (“no training required”), and she carries very little baggage (her only ‘baggage’ per se might be the fact that she was part of the Bush administration, but the public doesn’t seem to mind if you look at her approval ratings, which have remained constantly in the 55-70% range throughout her entire career while Bush and other officials’ ratings have fluctuated violently and are now sitting quite low).
I sincerely believe that, in the end, Republicans will turn to Sec. Rice because she presents the best of both worlds–she is an undoubtedly conservative candidate who has the electoral might to win.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Woody, you are dreaming.
This is not the 1950s. There will be no draft. The Republican nominee will be the winner among those candidates who choose to get in the race and fight for the privilege.
You are also dreaming if you think Secretary Rice is a conservative.
You are creating your own alternative reality, which is fine if it wasn’t for taking up space and time on this site that should be going to bona fide 2008 candidates.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Republius,
I’m glad you’ve taken the time to sincerely consider and respond to my posts. I may disagree with you, but please know that I do enjoy and appreciate our discussions.
As for presidential drafts, why do you think that they only worked in the 1950′s? Did you know that several dozen noteworthy candidates have been effectively drafted into presidential races throughout our history? And of those draft candidates, SIX have actually gone on to win the nomination. The last time that that occurred was in 1964, when the Draft Goldwater movement rocketed Barry Goldwater into the race to win the nomination. His exact statements before he was drafted were: “Draft, nothin’—I told you I’m not going to run. [...] I’m not a candidate. And I’m not going to be. I have no intention of running for the Presidency.” Ms. Rice’s most recent denial, on the other hand, was: “Elected office probably isn’t for me.”
In fact, candidates have been being drafted into presidential races almost once a year on average, with the last instance being just 2 years ago in the 2004 election, when NATO Supr. Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, was drafted into the Democratic race, and despite having entered the race so late, he finished third in the New Hampshire primary. Had he not chosen to bypass Iowa, he may well have gotten on the ticket.
Also, please further explain why you feel that Sec. Rice is not a conservative. I am interested to know what brought you to this conclusion. She’s conservative on immigration, border security, the economy, education, foreign policy (obviously), federal power, free trade, healthcare, civil rights, second amendment rights (she’s without a doubt the firmest pro-2nd Amendment rights candidate of all potential ’08 GOP candidates), taxes, and importantly, her core values and principles. While she is widely misquoted and misrepresented as being “pro-choice,” she is actually very much pro-life, and has layed out what is, in my opinion, a VERY smart strategy for ending abortion in America. What exactly makes Ms. Rice not conservative in your opinion?
As for “wasting time and space on this site,” if you take issue with my pro-Condi posts, please make a case to Kavon as to why Rice-related discussion should be banned from this blog, since Kavon himself lists Sec. Rice amongst all the other potential candidates. I was taken on board here with the blog administration’s full knowledge that I was a pro-Condi blogger.
Also, I don’t think this is any sort of alternative reality. As I said in an earlier statement on this blog:
I don’t think this is a Twilight Zone possibility any more than some of the other aspects of this coming ’08 election. One could just have easily said that 2008 wouldn’t be a wide-open race on both sides of the field because it hasn’t been since the 1920′s that neither party had an incumbent/heir try for the nomination, and in these days, there is always an incumbent/heir. But, lo and behold, we’re now repeating a precedent that hasn’t been seen in 80 years. Why do we not think that Hillary Clinton is too far out a possibility to actually make it since there is actually no precedent whatsoever for a female president in our country? However, like Condi, she’s coming out on the top of her respective party’s polls and she’s being seriously discussed. The rate of sitting Senators making it into the White House is very low also–two or three, ever, I believe. In fact, we’ve more recently had a presidential nominee get drafted than we have had a sitting Senator assume the presidency. The last one to do so was JFK in 1960, whereas the last presidential nominee to be drafted was in 1964. Heck, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, there isn’t a precedent for Presidents who were born outside of the continental U.S., but that doesn’t stop people from talking about John McCain, born in Panama. There’s so many different things you could discount any candidate on based on the rather silly idea that “if it hasn’t happened within the last 10 years, it can never happen again.”
Presidential candidates are drafted into races all the time, Republius, and with Sec. Rice’s comparatively soft and dodgy denials of interest (she’s never given the Sherman Oath, which so many others, including VP Cheney, have freely given) there is no reason why she couldn’t be persuaded. And with Sec. Rice’s immense electoral potential and extraordinary resume, there is no reason why the public wouldn’t want to persuade her.
It’s all right that you disagree with me, Republius, but I stand by my conviction.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
As I’ve said many times on this site, Condi will not run or be drafted into the 2008 race. Drafts only occur when the the party can’t find a suitable candidate (as in 1952 and ’64) to be the nominee. With McCain, Romney and Giuliani, there is no need to look elsewhere for a canidate. Not to mention the fact that Condi has never run for elected office and is thus untested. Now, I am actually a big fan of hers myself, but I think that she would have a much better shot at the vice presidency. McCain/Rice or Giuliani/Rice would be amazing and would take at least 40 states.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
LJ: Ironically, it’s for that very reason that I sincerely believe Dr. Rice will be drafted into the 2008 presidential race. The big-leaguers (McCain and Giuliani) who are guaranteed to win the general election, I believe will ultimately be found unacceptable by conservative primary voters, while the trueblue conservatives (Romney, Huckabee, etc.) will be thought of as taking a gamble on the general election. Sec. Rice is the only candidate, in my opinion, who can both uphold the entire GOP party platform in good faith and field the electoral might that a Giuliani or McCain would otherwise have.
If primary voters are looking for someone who is both a real conservative and someone who will win, Condi is their best choice. Her stratospheric showing in public opinion samples are just a small testament to the power of a Condoleezza Rice candidacy. Condi is the only true conservative who is guaranteed to take the White House. She will be drafted.
I’m looking forward to a Rice/Giuliani or Rice/Romney ticket, personally.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
The good news is that once the Iowa and New Hampshire filing deadlines are met and there is no Condi Rice on the ballot then this ridiculous line of analysis will all go away and we can focus on the real 2008 candidates.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
But, how in the world is Condi more acceptable to the GOP primary base than McCain or Giulinai?!
September 29th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
In Iowa, the Republican party does not require a
candidate to be “offically announced” in order to
be part of the Caucus. Right now, in Iowa, Condi
maintains the required “viability factor” of 15% or
higher in poll after poll. Therefore, if Condi is
seen as win, place, or show in the Iowa Horserace of
January 2008, she will be encouraged to run by President
Bush. She is the only LEGACY candidate on the Republican
side, no other Republican directly benefits from being linked
to President Bush.
Now the other point of interest is that House Majority Leader
Steve Swiggum supports Condi and with the convention in his
backyard, there might be a way for Minnesota delegates and other
nationwide delegates to come forward on the floor for Condi.
I think the race between Rudy and McCain and Romney will be so
tight and so divided that neither of these men will have
the required delegates to win the nomination.
If there are UN-declared/NON-committed delegates at the 2008
convention, Condi will benefit. Think about it, if delegates
are free to select another candidate if the one which they
supported on the FIRST BALLOT is not able to get the required
number, all of those delegates are FREE to choose who they
want and if the state chairs have a favorable belief in Condi, she
gets their SECOND BALLOT vote.
Condi’s name can be placed on some state primary ballots based on her
strong national poll numbers, and right now, she maintains
18% average overall.
Also, the August Straw poll in Ames Iowa will provide the
first real test in the state of Condi support. There
were 10 Republicans listed in August 1999, and any political
watcher can check out the fact that Bush was top. Steve Forbes
spent millions to come in 2nd, and Elizabeth Dole came in 3rd
Only McCain, who failed to show up in Iowa, continued in the
race (yes, Alan Keyes did too). But by the end of March,
Gov Bush of Texas was the clear winner.
With Rudy, McCain, Mitt Romney or Gingrich at strong support, as I
said earlier, they will divide up the delegation PIE,
and without a clear winner, we could see a FLOOR FIGHT
at the convention. Unless the campaigns get nasty, like
McCain smearing Rudy or something like that, the people will
have a real battle on their hands to find a CLEAR winner.
President Bush and Karl Rove will have more influence on
whether Condi decides to run or not, but if the draft movement
keeps showing strong support, then I think she can be
convinced this is HER Time to run, it is HER time to step
into the White House without skipping a beat to become
president. The transition time between Clinton and Bush
after the November 2000 election lost momentum and MUST NOT
be repeated in January 2009. We need a leader like Condi
to hit the ground running as our next president.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
LJ: What reason is there for Condi to not be found more acceptable by the conservative voting base than Giuliani or McCain? With great respect for both of those men, I have to say that I think Condi is far more of a true conservative than either of them.
Condi has a lock on the Top Three Movers & Shakers of Republican primaries (Foreign policy Republicans, evangelicals, and the NRA). Obviously she would be the top choice of Foreign policy Republicans–that doesn’t need any explanation. She’s an outspoken evangelical Christian who has consistently made it clear that she has a deep personal relationship with Jesus Christ and relies on God in her everyday life, plus she comes from a long line of Protestant preachers and has a great personal story to tell. And without a doubt, she is the strongest candidate in the entire GOP ’08 field when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights–which the NRA loves.
Here are some of her quotes on gun rights:
“I also don’t think we get to pick and choose in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment.”
“My father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against white nightriders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there armed. And so I’m very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment.”
“I am a Second Amendment absolutist.”
It would come as no surprise to me, nor should it to anyone, that Condi Rice is very well the most acceptable nominee to hardcore conservative Republican primary voters.
In the June 26-29, 2006 Gallup poll, Rice and Giuliani are statistically tied as the most acceptable presidential nominees to “Republicans and Republican leaners”. They are each 68% and 73% acceptable, respectively, which, with the MoE taken into account, puts them both as basically the two most acceptable nominees to people who lean toward the right in general. All this is coupled with the fact that there are only 3% who are unsure about her–meaning, even if all three percent of those Unsures decide she’s unacceptable, it really makes no difference. She even has room for some Acceptables to convert to Unacceptables and she’d still be in the same place. The next most acceptable candidate to “Republican leaners” is McCain who is only 55% acceptable, and notably 41% unacceptable, and with only 5% Unsure, he unfortunately doesn’t have a lot of room to expand that gap.
This is good news for a Condi candidacy as it is, but it gets even better when you focus on those hardcore conservative voters who actually vote in Republican primaries. Here’s what an August Pew Poll showed:
Notice that among all voters, Condi comes in at a close 3rd, and with the MoE that could still be higher. Notice that when focused onto Republican voters, Condi overtakes McCain and moves to 2nd, just like the Gallup Poll showed. BUT, when focusing on the “Conservative” Republicans only, Condi takes 1st place. Notice at the bottom of the chart, conservative Republicans make up almost 3/4 of GOP voters compared to liberal and moderate Republicans, which, even when combined only make up slightly over 1/4 of the GOP. This is just a small slice of evidence ingrafted in the bigger picture here: Condi is the most acceptable candidate to hardcore conservative Republican primary voters, which, fortunately for her, are by far the dominant sect of the GOP and statistically tend to vote in primaries far more often than their moderate-liberal counterparts.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
With respect to filing deadlines, Debbie makes a good point that GOP rules do not require such for the Iowa Caucuses. In fact, the 15% threshhold she refers to only impacts Democrat candidates (such that those voting in a precinct caucus for a Democrat candidate who ends up with less than 15% must recast their caucus vote for someone who received more than 15% in that precinct caucus); Republicans in Iowa can cast a vote for whomever they wish in their precinct caucus.
But realistically if Secretary Rice is not running a campaign and filed to do such in New Hampshire then the voters of Iowa are not going to give her serious consideration in their caucuses, though Debbie is correct that Iowans will be free to vote for Secretary Rice in their caucuses regardless.