Bush's Secret Weapon (Condi)

Is Condoleezza Rice set to become the first black female US vice-president? Sharon Krum reports

Condoleezza Rice once described her childhood as one where she couldn't sit at the lunch counter at Woolworths, but her parents still told her she could grow up to be president. Racism and segregation ruled her world in the deep south, but inside the Rice home, the great American myth prevailed. Stay in school, work hard, trust in God, and yes, you - a little black girl from Birmingham, Alabama - might actually move into the White House. One can only imagine the howls of laughter this would have elicited from the Rice's white neighbours.

Well, as the old saying goes, look who's laughing now. That former little black girl is suddenly being talked about - without a trace of irony - as a serious contender for the Republican vice-presidential nomination in 2004, and Bush's secret weapon for a second term. As an idea it's both strategically brilliant and a public relations dream, which explains why the buzz around Rice is starting to sound like an army of crickets on a hot summer night.

"Putting the first African-American woman on the ticket would be historic, no doubt," says Marie Wilson, founder of the White House Project, a lobby group working to put a woman in the White House by 2008. She mentions Elizabeth Dole's failed Republican candidacy in 2000, recalling that she "attracted women to her candidacy who didn't agree with her politics".

Which is exactly the thinking behind putting Rice on the ticket in 2004. Assuming Vice-President Dick Cheney doesn't run due to ill health (he has chronic heart trouble), pairing another big-money white guy with George Bush would be nothing but a yawn. But nominating Rice, the current National Security Adviser who, since September 11, has emerged as one of the most prominent and hawkish strategists in the US war on terrorism, would be another story.

She would be the first African-American and only the second woman (Democrat Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP in 1984) on a major party presidential ticket. And the hype that double whammy would create on the campaign trail is proving irresistible to kingmakers whose job it is to explore such possibilities. So too is the prospect of peeling away thousands of women and black voters from the Democratic party, not to mention beating them at their own game. Conventional wisdom has long held that the first woman in the White House, like the first black American, would be a Democrat.

"Since September 11, foreign policy has been catapulted to the top of the national agenda, giving Rice a lot of visibility, credibility and authority," says Wilson. "The fact that she is so hawkish actually gives her a strong chance of making it on to the ticket. Because when it comes to the crunch, men always ask one thing about women running for high office: how would she handle a war?"

Rice is an anomaly in Republican corridors of power, which have long been dominated by a white, wealthy, old boys' network. While her politics veer hard right on foreign policy, she has admitted to being "pro-choice evangelical" and "almost shockingly libertarian" or "moderate" on other issues. There is no question her views on abortion (consistent with libertarian politics) would inflame the Christian wing of the party. Yet the consensus, in a post-September 11 world, is that her expertise in handling foreign policy would trump those concerns. And as polls have consistently shown, in federal elections abortion is never a make-or-break issue.

But her incongruity in a party that attracted only 10% of the black vote in the last election may also be her greatest asset. Just think of the media coverage - not to mention the repercussions for Bush's own reputation. Bill Kristol, editor of a conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, says: "President Bush really wants to make the Republican party more inclusive to both African-Americans and women. If he put Condi on the ticket it would assert a boldness on his part that he is serious about opening the party up."

Nominating Rice would make Bush look good, but would it give the Republicans some traction where they sorely need it, closing the race and gender gap? Research shows American women vote left in greater numbers than men. Yet soccer moms and urban female professionals, says Wilson, may well throw their weight behind Rice, seduced by the idea of "creating" women's political history. Would the feminist community support Rice for the same reason?

"I doubt it," says Wilson. "The women's community doesn't vote for women just based on gender. They would need to know where Rice stands on issues such as health care, affirmative action and abortion before they give her their vote."

Given that Rice has never held elective office, her stance on those issues can only be gleaned from interviews. On health care she has said nothing, but when she was provost of Stanford University she once commented: "I say in principle that I don't believe in, and in fact will not apply, affirmative action in promotions." But her pro-choice views, anathema to religious Republicans, could score her major points with feminists.

The black community, however, might be more easily divided. Kristol says a Rice nomination, which by definition would put her in the pipeline for the presidency in 2008, might seriously galvanise black America in spite of her arch-conservative views. "A Rice vice-presidency would be so incredibly historic. It's entirely possible she would attract a higher percentage of black votes."

Rice, 47, grew up in segregated Alabama, the only child of parents whose focus was education and religion. A prodigy who spoke four languages and skipped two grades, Rice enrolled in university at 15, graduated at 19 and earned her doctorate in political science in her mid-20s, specialising in Russia. Considered one of the foremost experts in Sovietology, Rice taught at Stanford then worked on nuclear strategic planning for the joint chiefs of staff. She served in the first Bush administration as director of Soviet and east European affairs on the National Security Council.

She left Washington to return to Stanford as provost, only to be lured back to politics by the younger Bush, serving as his campaign adviser on foreign policy. Some have suggested that she tutored him from scratch, a charge she vigorously denies.

One year after joining the Bush team, Rice, who is unmarried, has emerged as one of his closest advisers, heavily influencing his dealings with Russia, the Balkans and Israel, as well as his denunciation of the now infamous "axis of evil". As National Security Adviser, she is said to exert the most sway with a president since Henry Kissinger.

"I am a realist," she said recently, describing her stance on global conflict. "Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and furthermore, the American people wouldn't accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we're naive and so on, but we're not Europeans, we're Americans - and we have different principles."

While the idea of a black woman from the segregated south becoming a conservative vice-president is irresistible to the press, the reality is that Rice is a foreign-policy wonk. She has never publicly declared a domestic agenda, nor held elective office. Although the Democrats would cry foul, Kristol says a Bush/Rice ticket is too brilliant an idea for the president to ignore.

"He respects her, he is comfortable with her, and he is very interested in closing the gender and the race gap. She could help him do that. Not to mention that running with her would make history."

So who then does Al Gore, who, despite his defeat, is still considered one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination in 2004, choose as his own running mate to put up a fight against the inevitable Bush/Rice media frenzy? Hillary, perhaps?

This is one of the most stupid (and that's saying something) Guardian articles I have read.

When they write about the U.S., I discover just how little they know about this country.

I will apply this new insight to all their future material.

Rice is an anomaly in Republican corridors of power, which have long been dominated by a white, wealthy, old boys' network

What a lie. Herbert hoover was not wealthy. He was a middle class Iowa man who was an engineer by trade. Wendle Wilkee was not wealthy. And Tom Dewey was a prosecutor with no wealth. Ike was a farm boy. He spend his adult life living on an army salary. Nixon was the son of a lower middle class Quaker family. Jerry Ford was a very middle class man. Reagan was the son of an alcoholic store clerk. The Bush's are a mildly wealthy family but the Cheney family is not.

On the Democratic side FDR was from a rich and powerful New York Family that had been rich since New York was New Amsterdamm. Harry Truman was not rich, but Adlai Stevenson was. Kennedy was rich and Jimmy Carter was not. Clinton was not rich. But no Republican is as rich as Ross Perot. And almost all the super rich are Democrats. Buffet, Gates, Ford, Vanderbuilt, and Rockefeller are all Democrats. The Presidents of GE, Merril Lynch, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner,and Boeing are all Democrats. The presidents of the New York times, Washington Post, LA times and CNN are all Democrats.

If Democrats are the party of the poor, how come all the super rich people are Democrats?

RE # 4:

Because the DemoRATS, just like the Communists, are an unbeatable alliance of the guilt ridden rich and the lumps plus an odd assortment of envy consumed low class working stiffs and middle class working stiffs who think themselves poorer than they are.

Another good question is why are we so bad at pointing out this fact? Almost all the movies stars are dems, and they are very rich. All of the union bosses, CEO's of charities, etc. are pretty well off as well, and they are democrats.

I am tired of this malarkey, and we need to point out the truth.

Because the DemoRATS, just like the Communists, are an unbeatable alliance of the guilt ridden rich

I Dont think its guilt that motivates the ultra rich limousine liberals, rather GREED. Certain wealthy individuals can benefit of having a large state to protect their interests. They know their large capital will keep them in the pockets of all the politicians. Meanwhile the little guy has no political power and no say in the dealings of the state, just empty promises of meager handouts from the state.

I dont know, just my opinion.

RE: #4
Great points! I have ripped your post into a file I keep of such insightful goodies for use in self defense against the lefties in my scooter club. By your leave, I will include a link to this thread if I roll this out in the never ending flame war that is our biker "brotherhood."

Stay in school, work hard, trust in God, and yes, you - a little black girl from Birmingham, Alabama - might actually move into the White House. One can only imagine the howls of laughter this would have elicited from the Rice's white neighbours.

An ignorant and racist comment from the author. It is Black peers who "howl with derisive laughter" at any sugestion that America is anything but an evil enterprise. Black children who exhibit the values taught to Condi by her parents are ridiculed by their peers as "being too white."

What a lie. Herbert hoover was not wealthy,

Not to disagree with the main premise of your post but this part is incorrect. Herbert Hoover most certainly was wealthy. He was born to a poor to lower-middle class family in Iowa and orphaned at age nine, but through his own industriousness (common Quaker trait) he became a millionaire several times over before he became president (and one quite often unfairly maligned).

I thought, by the title, the article might have something to do with this....

Bush Chooses Clinton for East Timor Mission

Then I wondered if there was a correlation in this...

Clinton aides say he was invited by White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

But now I think just everyone - EVERYONE - is going to be happy come 2004.

..Black children who exhibit the values taught to Condi by her parents are ridiculed by their peers as "being too white."..

Only in some circles- many Black children still grow up with the values Condi did. Even some of us whose families were different politically did. Don't take a few anecdotes and apply them to the whole group.

Obviously, I did not say that all Black children are ridiculed by their peers when they strive to attain the virtues which create success in the society at large, but it is clear that far too many do receive negative feed back for simply showing academic promise. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, among others, have pointed this out.

"Jesse Jackson ethics" seem to prevail. This boils down to "Get what you can from the government because it owes you. Don't bother to try and succeed through personal initiative, work and ability, because Ole' Whitey just gonna hold you down anyway."

Success stories like Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas (all Republicans, by the way) and untold numbers of others, are all the more impressive because of what they have overcome. It seems to me that residual Racism from a "White Power Structure" is less a problem today than the more insidious Jesse Jackson-type Racism that seeks to keep folks on the Federal Plantation to serve as a political power base for the crooks who run the Democrat Party-Civil Rights Leaders coalition.

I say more power to every single American who seeks success through working hard and playing fair. I say a pox on those who insist on relying on some sort of hyphenated name tag to try and get special status.

It seems to me that residual Racism from a "White Power Structure" is less a problem today than the more insidious Jesse Jackson-type Racism that seeks to keep folks on the Federal Plantation to serve as a political power base for the crooks who run the Democrat Party-Civil Rights Leaders coalition.

Both kinds of racism are a problem- the former was just in place longer.

I agree, and a pox on those who try to deny people what is rightfully theirs because of skin color too.

Conventional wisdom has long held that the first woman in the White House, like the first black American, would be a Democrat.

This may be conventional wisdom, but it is SOOO wrong.
The Democrat party sees minorities and women as incapable of "making it" on their own without government assistance. People in these categories, according to Democrat thought processes, are inferior to the elitists in power who "know what's best for them".

Conservatives, on the other hand, see all people as having the potential of rising to the highest position based on their abilities, given that the government does not interfere and just functions to protect liberty.

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.