Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Democrats/Media Have to Destroy Condi Rice Now. Here's Why,
none | 3/30/2004 | The South Texan

Posted on 03/30/2004 6:39:31 AM PST by The South Texan

Excuse the vanity, but I have to get this off my chest. There is a reason the media/Democrats are going after Condi Rice in the fashion they have been doing the past week and it has to do with numbers and a women from Arkansas that is now a “resident” in New York.

The numbers are 2008.

And the resident from New York is Hillary Rodam Clinton.

I think the Democrats have concluded that they will lose in November and if the lastest polling info is correct, they may have launched there biggest missile and it has landed a dud. So now the media/Democrat slime machine must destroy somebody else and that is no other than Condi Rice. Why?

Can you imagine if Condi Rice is the nominee of the GOP in 2008? The Democrats could never claim to be the first to nominate an African American as the first to be nominated to head a major party ticket. If she would win, she would also be the first women President which is another blow against the Democrats future claim to history.

And why does Hillary fear her? Because Condi would mop the floor with her in 2008.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Excuse the Vanity. I don't do this much.
1 posted on 03/30/2004 6:39:31 AM PST by The South Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
You make a good point. Wouldn't you love to see the internal Democrat memoes on Condi?
2 posted on 03/30/2004 6:43:19 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
Vanity is OK by me. I believe we should be looking to 2008, but had better not forget that we have important elections in 2004 and 2006 as well. After we get W reelected, then we can look to future planning.

I do not believe Condi Rice would be a good candidate for President, as (IIRC) she has not held elected office before. VP, maybe.
3 posted on 03/30/2004 6:43:33 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run in 2008 (on either spot on the ticket). However I heard on some TV report yesterday that she is telling friends that she does not plan to serve in a second Bush administration. If she is out of the public eye for a few years, I'm not sure how people will look at her in 2008.
4 posted on 03/30/2004 6:50:51 AM PST by Stirner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
let the dems go after condi... she's smart and bright enough to thwart them... as a matter of fact, all the dems would be doing is opening the door for condi for the future... through their pathetic attempt at grilling her, the people will see how bright she is and she'll come out on top, in a better position that the whats-her-name from ny...
5 posted on 03/30/2004 6:51:31 AM PST by InvisibleChurch (I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
If I recall correctly, there have been several presidents in thhistory of this country who never held elective office before. George Washington, for example, comes to mind.

However, Ms. Rice does have quite a few factors in her favor should she decided to ever do so: she's intelligent (as opposed to what passes for educated these days), articulate, not given to rhetorical excess, she's experienced in the foreign policy field. She would certainly make a much better candidate than 90% of the Republicans currently in office and certainly 100% of the democarts (small 'd' intentional).

If your criteria for running for higher office is that one should have held some lesser office first, I remind you that the Hildebeest never held anything (including her husband) and still managed to get a fair percentage of us brain-dead NY'ers to vote her into the Senate. She's been bandied about as a Presidential contender from day one.

Condi Rice would beat the crusty, black pantsuit off of that carpetbagger and definately clean John Kerry's clock, IMO.
6 posted on 03/30/2004 6:52:21 AM PST by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
Pubs are doing their best to help the dems,as usual.
7 posted on 03/30/2004 6:55:13 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
I would have be inclined to agree about Rice not being an ideal candidate simply because she has no elected office experience. People who have been through the electoral process have a better insight on dealing with the public as well as the motivations of their fellow politicians. However, I made the same argument against President Bush in 2000, since his elected office experience was pretty limited, and I was (happy to say) totally wrong. What I want in a president is clear moral values, high level of education and problem solving ability, and, most importantly, a solid steel spine. I believe Rice has all three qualities in abundance and I she ran in 2004, I'd vote for her.
8 posted on 03/30/2004 6:57:34 AM PST by Guard Dog (Who fears the wrath of a coward?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stirner
The Democrats' allegations against Rice will fail. They will crash and burn when she testifies publicly. I will predict right now that after her public testimony she will become hugely popular, and a patron saint within the Republican Party.

Think of the whole Ollie North effect, squared.

This is misdirection. I'm convinced that she will be the next Vice President of the United States. All poor Hillary has done is to piss her off.

But it serves her purposes right now to tell others that she will leave. She won't. Bush and Rice are joined at the hip.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

9 posted on 03/30/2004 7:00:18 AM PST by section9 (Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "John Kerry: all John F., no Kennedy..." Click on my pic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
WH just now announcing that Condi will testify.
10 posted on 03/30/2004 7:01:15 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
Publicly?
11 posted on 03/30/2004 7:02:15 AM PST by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
I agree with your assessment of Dr. Rice's intelligence, experience and character, but must respectfully disagree with your evaluation of her electability. I am not using experience in a lower elected office as a criterion for ability to do the job, but ability to campaign effectively. Unfortunately, good people who do not have campaign experience very often make "rookie" mistakes that end up derailing their own campaigns.
12 posted on 03/30/2004 7:03:39 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
Condi scares the crap out of the Dems. She has proven them wrong about minorities being dependent upon "their" social programs. The verse which talks about; "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life". The first part is what the Dems keep doing. The Dems keep the folks hanging on day by day with their handouts and extolling the virtues of their benevolence(with our tax dollars). The Republicans want folks to fend for themselves(with a little help), but not dependence.

Condi trashes all of their (Dems) ideals. If the Dems have control over the minorities because of social programs, then that control equates to power because the folks are dependent on them. Control=Power, Power=Control.

Condi has proven herself to be a very capable leader, however, dealing with the public is an important consideration as well. I think her true, vivacious personality would become apparent if she was given the chance to show it. Her job is a very serious one and folks haven't seen her really lighten up because she takes it so seriously.

Go Condi! Don't give in to the RAT B******S!

Condi in 2008!(I'd vote for her)

Cheers!
13 posted on 03/30/2004 7:04:29 AM PST by SZonian (The truth hurts, so bury it! (Liberal tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stirner
Well, the NFL just extended Tagliabue's contract as commissioner, so her "dream job" is unavailable....seriously...the media continues to talk up rumors that Cheney won't run, despite Bush's strong endorsement of him as his VP...they''re starting to believe their own delusions, so maybe they fear her as VP in '04
14 posted on 03/30/2004 7:05:20 AM PST by ken5050 (JIm Angle rocks!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Guard Dog
'04?

If you mean '08, I would vote for her in a New York minute as well.
15 posted on 03/30/2004 7:05:29 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stirner
. . . I heard on some TV report yesterday that she is telling friends that she does not plan to serve in a second Bush administration.

Wishful thinking by the media libs and the Demrats. I'll wait to hear from Ms. Rice what she intends. My bet is she's planning to stay with George W. for another term.

16 posted on 03/30/2004 7:09:15 AM PST by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I have also wondered about the Dems sudden interest in trashing Rice - it is VERY interesting. And as another poster suggested, it would be very interesting to see internal Dem memos regarding Rice. (Of course, the only internal memos the press ever goes after are ones that might embarrass Republican administrations; think, for example, of how many leaked memos there've been in recent months regarding the alleged influence of corporate interests in the EPA. And think how the press quickly dropped the story about special interest groups working hand-in-glove with the Dems to scuttle Bush judicial nominees.)

Getting back to Rice, it does seem plausible that the Dems are wagaing a pre-emptive strike against Rice's future political ambitions, trying to tarnish her in the public eye before her stature can grow to presidential-contender proportions. The Dems would hate it if the first black presidential nominee from a major party were a Republican; of course, if that were to happen, they would insist she's not really black.
17 posted on 03/30/2004 7:11:32 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I agree with this point (and have for some time), only I think it more likely that she will be the VP choice for some undetermined white male Presidential candidate.
18 posted on 03/30/2004 7:15:48 AM PST by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
As far as I'm concerned, one who hasn't held elected office before (read: professional politician) would be a much more attractive candidate.

As for the '08 elections, I think we need to be looking to them as I agree with South Texan in that this whole election cycle for the democrats appears to have been messed with in order to set hillary up for a nomination.
19 posted on 03/30/2004 7:16:22 AM PST by kenth (We want a cowboy, not a gay rodeo clown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeperfromnj
Yes, in public, there are other threads around now about it, if you haven't seen them yet.

Sorry I didn't get back to you right away, but was elsewhere!
20 posted on 03/30/2004 7:17:07 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Guard Dog
Rice appeals to a lot of Freepers, including me, but I think there are problems with her electability: (1) she has never held an elective office; (2) she is black and there is still a racist element that will vote against her for that reason alone - and some of those people are nominal Republicans; and (3) she is smart in a "brainy" way that scares some people. One reason that the anti-Bork campaign was so successful was that Bork was brainy and serious, and that scared the soccer moms, made him seem sinister rather than smart. And Rice has a little of that Borkian quality that might turn-off some voters.
21 posted on 03/30/2004 7:17:33 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Condi Rice would beat the crusty, black pantsuit off of that carpetbagger and definately clean John Kerry's clock, IMO.

YEAH she would. Just imagine the consternation among the Dem rank and file should Ms. Rice run...and the first serious black female candidate for president (or VP) is nominated by the Republicans! Wouldn't that throw a wrench into the liberal worldview?

I mean, what do you do if you're a solid Al Sharpton voter, and Condi Rice's name is on the ballot? You'd have an ideological nervous breakdown, that's what, because you've believed ever since you became political that the Republicans are the party of the privileged white male.

22 posted on 03/30/2004 7:18:22 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I think to many people remain focused on Hillary Clinton when it just isn't warranted. She's the "boogieman" under many conservatives "bed".

The poll numbers don't support this weird fixation. Yes, she is a miserable human being. Yes, she's a liar of the first order.

However, she carries the stigma of the Clinton Era with her to this day. Her negative numbers are very near the historical record, her popularity in New York has dropped since 9/11. Its questionable if she will be reelected in the capital of Liberalism, New York.

Throw in the fact that Senator's seldom make sucessful runs for President, anger by many of the NOW crowd that she didn't divorce the Impeached One, and her inability to speak publicly without "losing it" ala Al Gore in "Reverend mode"....sorry, I just don't see her as an ongoing threat, beyond say Teddy "Drown Em" Kennedy, or any other leftwingnut in the Senate.

She simply can't undo the negative ratings concerning her.
23 posted on 03/30/2004 7:18:33 AM PST by Badeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I agree with Chris. Condi will mop the floor with Clarke. She is telegenic, very smart, fast on the draw, and has the truth on her side. She will come out of this looking very good.

In point of fact, this gives the top Republicans a lot of free air time and access to a large audience. The media usually tries to bury any appearance they make. Now they will have a chance to address the nation, and I think they will give a very favorable impression.

The networks have refused to run some major speeches by Bush on the War on Terror. Here's his chance to show his real strength. And the strength of his chief security aides.
24 posted on 03/30/2004 7:20:56 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
You overlook that the media almost literally worship Hillary, and that a Hillary candidacy would energize them as they have never been energized before. And they would innoculate her against any criticism by making the point you make - she is a bogeyman for conservatives, and that would just make opposition to her seem reactionary and mean-spirited, strengthening her even more. 90% of the women in the media TOTALLY identify with Hillary, and she would be promoted by the media as no one else has ever been promoted before.
25 posted on 03/30/2004 7:23:46 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kenth
Personally, I would prefer to see someone other than professional politicians in office. The problem is getting them there. Sadly, that tends to take experience at campaigning.

I am not saying we should ignore '08, but would suggest that it is a ways off yet and we need to look to '04 and '06 first. It would be very dangerous to focus too much energy too far out - trying to prepare for the next battle while the outcome of the current one is still uncertain is a formula for losing both.
26 posted on 03/30/2004 7:27:58 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
She simply can't undo the negative ratings concerning her.



As long as Peter Paul and Aaron Tonken are alive, she will never run!
27 posted on 03/30/2004 7:28:05 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
I realized after I posted that the story was just breaking. I just saw the other threads on it. Thanks
28 posted on 03/30/2004 7:28:18 AM PST by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The first thing Rice should say is: "For Richard Clarke to have implied that - in early 2001 - I had never heard of al-Quaeda, can only be a deliberate, malicious attempt to assassinate my character; there is no other possible interpretation. I had spoken and written on the topic of al-Quaeda many times prior to 2001. Mr. Clarke owes me an apology."
29 posted on 03/30/2004 7:29:15 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Hold your judgments until after she presents her case to the Commission.

She will surely discredit Clarke's "testimony" (perjury) and vindicate the Bush White house completely. The media will have no room for spin either because of her ability to spell out things so clearly, there will be no double spaces for the media to write any assumptions over the top of her testimony.

Clarke is basing his entire book on the assumption that the President ordered him to fabricate a report to justify a war, based on what he interpreted as a tone of voice or body language. His assumptions were then raised to the level of fact by the media.

Ms. Rice will stun them to the degree that their credibility will be worthless to any future B.S. they try to sell the public from here on out.

30 posted on 03/30/2004 7:31:07 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Careful! Your TAGS are the mirror of your SOUL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Actually, I consider the liberal media's impact on this. Whats clear is even with that "help" nothing has changed. Her negatives in the polling data remain historical "highs" that will never change (Teddy Kennedy has the exact same problem, for example).

And as we know, the "liberal media" has lost a ton of crediblity with average Americans. Its reached critical mass, which is why the ratings for ABC/CBS/NBC have declined for two decades...with that decline speeding up as more cable news outlets like Fox, and the internet, grew among the masses.

Its common for humans to prepare to fight the last war. I view this in much the same light. The "Clinton Wars" have ended, some just don't realize it because it appears they "got off the hook". Maybe they didn't go to jail, and yes Hillary does hold public office for the moment. But consider just how many Democrats actively supported by the Clinton's have won or lost elections since they came into office in 1992.

That number alone debunks the "Hillary is coming, and we are doomed" stuff, in my opinion.
31 posted on 03/30/2004 7:33:26 AM PST by Badeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
I agree with one exception ~ Jeb's VP in 2008
32 posted on 03/30/2004 7:34:40 AM PST by TatieBug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
"give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life"

There is a variation on that I hear around me, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he stays out on the boat drunk all day." ;-)

33 posted on 03/30/2004 7:37:55 AM PST by StriperSniper (Ernest Strada Fanclub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
I wasn't paying perfect attention at the time but I could swear I heard Rush mention she would be unbeatable as a VP candidate this year should Cheney's health become a problem. Rush said the very prospect of a Bush/Rice ticket terrifies the Dems. Therefore she must be destroyed......now.
34 posted on 03/30/2004 7:40:03 AM PST by Wiser now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freeperfromnj
Sure, you bet!
35 posted on 03/30/2004 7:45:45 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wiser now
I didn't hear it on Rush, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
36 posted on 03/30/2004 7:51:57 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper
Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime, give a man a fish and he demands fries and tartar sauce.

'Cause he's "entitled" of course.
37 posted on 03/30/2004 7:54:13 AM PST by RebelBanker (Negotiate? [BANG] Anybody else want to negotiate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
The Democrats/Media Have to Destroy Condi Rice Now.

Given Condi's obvious political threat to Hillary, and the recent SC decision on the Vince Foster photos, Condi would be well advised to avoid afternoon walks in Ft. Marcy Park...

38 posted on 03/30/2004 7:59:02 AM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Yes, indeed. And the question remains as to what, exactly, Clarke wrote in his report. Did he deny that there were WMDs in Iraq? No one knows - and the idiot liberal media isn't asking.
39 posted on 03/30/2004 9:32:26 AM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Her race has not thing one to do with it, since we've already seen that black voters will not vote ofr a candidate just because of race (i.e. Jesse Jackass or Al Sharpton). It would be interesting to see from the viewpoint of democratic strategy (i.e. how do you label republicans as racist? How do you say republicans don't care for minorities? etc). The thought of demidiots calling Ms. Rice an Aunt Thomasina would be funny if it weren' for the fact the diehards amongst them would still eat it up.





40 posted on 03/30/2004 12:09:08 PM PST by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson