MSNBC and FNC Democrat analyst thinks Cheney could still end up off the ticket

MSNBC-TV ^ | 1-2-04 | Me via watching MSNBC

[GraniteStateConservative]

I thought I'd post this just because it's interesting to learn about what the Democrat establishment is thinking.

Prior to joining FNC, Colgan was a Democratic fundraising and political consultant, and campaign manager for both David Wecht for Pennsylvania's superior court and Catherine Baker Knoll for state treasurer.

[jpl]

Cheney is in poor health can would not make a strong candidate in 2008.

I don't think Cheney is even really that interested in being President, he seems pretty content in the role he has now. I think Condoleeza Rice is an extraordinary person and would made a fine candidate, but something tells me that right now Bill Frist is the most likely one. But of course four years is an eternity, so who knows what will happen.

[KC_Conspirator]

Flavia Colgan is a cutie, but not at all that bright. Halliburton has nothing to with Cheney and only motivates the tin foil hat, hate-America leftist crowd. Howeveer, his health is a concern and Condi would be a great replacement. However, despite the lie Colgan insinuates that the Bush admin is "close the the vest", we all know they don't bluff. If he said Cheney is going to be VP, then Cheney is going to be VP until he says otherwise.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Abortion and high taxes, here we come. The Reagan Revolution is being undone thanks to the Bush Dynasty.>>

We're at war. Just as we were in the 1980s.

So much for the high taxes.

As for abortion, it's doomed, and Condi won't be able to save it.

[Prodigal Son]

Cheney runs, wins, then resigns because of health. Bush can pick his heir at that point.

That would be the smartest way to go if they want to do something like this.

[Terry Mross]

Wonderful! Condi for president in '08 and she gets to run as a sitting veep against Hillary.

[okie01]

"I love Cheney, but it would be nice to have a Veep with whom we could run in 2008."

Why?

Before George H.W. Bush in 1988, do you know who the last sitting Vice President to be elected President was?

Hint: You'll have to go back further than your fingers and toes will take you...

Being a sitting VP is not the "stepping stone to the Presidency" in any sense other than death-enabled.

[BooBoo1000]

Rice would be fine as V/P and give her 4 years to learn the ropes.Powell is a lost cause, and won't be around in the next administration. He is of the West Point mind set, it someone doesn't tell which clothes to wear he is lost. Sorry to say but he had been a bust so far.

[#3Fan]

She was just on MSNBC (I'm enjoying a long holiday weekend at home) and they were talking about the 2004 race. She said that the Bush people are good at keeping things close to the vest and that she thinks it's a strong possibility that because of Cheney's liabilities, in her opinion, of health and Halliburton, that he could be off the ticket.

The only people reading about Halliburton and imagining things from it are the wacko core of the Democrats we've heard so much about lately with their wacko favorite, Howard Dean.

[Prodigal Son]

Powell and Rice have both said they support affirmative action and that alone makes them unacceptable to me.

Are you sure about that? I had always heard Rice was anti-affirmative action. And she does not hold her current position because of affirmative action.

[AM2000]

And Rice could never be elected president in 2008 because she is black.

Are you implying she'll have have trouble getting out the GOP base because she's black?

[Conservative_Nationalist]

I think there are some republicans, independents, and democrats(The ones that cross over sometimes) who wouldn't vote for her because she is a black woman. I'm not saying that the GOP is full of racist. I just don't think a black woman can be elected president at this time no matter what their political affiliation is. People are use to electing White males and it's not going to be as easy to change that as some would like to believe. A lot of people wouldn't vote for her for those reasons and I'm not just talking about the blatant racist out there. But that's not the main reason I don't want her as VP. I don't want any one Like Condi, Colin, and Rudy running as VP and then running for president because they are all moderates(Condi is probably the most conservative out of those 3 but I don't like it that she supports affirmative action and abortion). A lot of you guys were disappointed because Bush turned out to be more liberal than most though he was but now you guys want to elect someone who is even more liberal than Bush in 2008.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

"Are you sure about that? I had always heard Rice was anti-affirmative action. And she does not hold her current position because of affirmative action."

When Trent Lott got in trouble for saying what he did both Powell and Rice came out and said they supported affirmative action. It was a big surprise and let down to me and it's changed my opinions on both. I don't know of any other black republicans who support reverse racism the way they do.

[okie01]

Rice would be fine as V/P and give her 4 years to learn the ropes.

Rice would be a fine VP and is a legitimate candidate for consideration when it comes to 2008.

But my point is that being VP is not an advantage when it comes to running for the Presidency. Before George H.W. Bush in 1988, the last previous sitting VP to be elected President was Martin Van Buren.

[Prodigal Son]

You have a reference for that? I'm almost sure I have heard Condi speak against Affirmative Action in its current form. I'll have to dig around but I would swear I've actually heard her say positive things about the Jim Crow South. Something along the lines of 'it was possible for a black person to make it during those days if he worked hard enough'.

I find this very hard to believe. Of Powell, sure. But of Condi- it seems a direct contradiction of other things that she's said.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

Bush's Affirmative Action
by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700


Copyright January 20, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

umping feet first into one of America's most politically incorrect topics, President George W. Bush weighed in on affirmative action. Bush denounced as "divisive, unfair" a University of Michigan admission's policy giving blacks and Hispanics 20 extra points for race or ethnicity, directing his solicitor general to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court. "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed," Bush told the press during a short White House statement. Whether the Michigan policy amounts to a quota system is anyone's guess. Giving a 20-point preference to minority smacks of reverse discrimination and provides undeniable evidence that Michigan uses race as a quantitative factor in the admissions process.


Bush's administration is the first in U.S. history to appoint three prominent African Americans to Cabinet-level positions. Secretary of State Colin A. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice oppose Bush's position on affirmative action and support the University of Michigan's admission policy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige—like former U.C. Regent Ward Connerly and author of Calfiornia's 1996 Proposition 209 banning affirmative action—opposes affirmative action and Michigan's 20-point plan to augment minority enrollment. "We do not have, and have never had, or numerical targets in either the undergraduate or law school admissions programs," said University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman, accusing Bush of "misunderstanding" the admissions process. Adding 20-points to minority applications automatically gives a 20% preference.


While Michigan may not have actual quotas, giving minorities 20-point preferences shifts the application process away from academic standards to racial preferences. Whether Michigan actually has quotas doesn't excuse a practice in which race gains applicants numerical advantage in the admission's process. Both Powell and Rice support Michigan's system, citing their own experiences as proof that affirmative action works. But it doesn't work for otherwise qualified candidates whose applications are squeezed out because minorities get extra points for race or ethnicity. Instead of getting preferential treatment, Bush advocates a "race-neutral" process in which top high school students get automatic acceptance into state universities—as now practiced in California, Texas and Florida. With Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott resigning his post over racial insensitivity, Republicans take political heat for opposing affirmative action.


Race-based preferences run counter to America's meritocracy, rewarding hard work and achievement. Facing political pressure, some Republicans can't stomach standing on solid ground. "Many Republicans throughout the nation believe that diversity should be recognized as a compelling government interest in the admissions policies of higher education," wrote Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafe of Rhode Island and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, all support the race-based practice at Michigan. One the eve of Martin Luther King Day, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) took a cheap shot: "Once again today, the administration has said, as clearly by their actions as anyone can, that they will continue to side with those who oppose civil rights and oppose diversity in this country." Daschle seems more interested in scoring points than fighting reverse discrimination.


It's been 25-years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [5-4] against quotas in Bakke vs. the University of California. In a split ruling, the Court ruled that racial quotas at U.C. Davis Medical School amounted to reverse discrimination against otherwise qualified applicants. Michigan's system is somehow different. The admissions policy is "a complex process that takes into account and considers the entire background of each applicant, just as the president urged," said Coleman, impeaching her own argument by giving black and Hispanic applicants 20-point preferences. Bush never urged giving extra points for race or ethnicity. His "affirmative access" program in Texas offered the top 10% of high school graduates automatic acceptance into the state university. All things being equal, giving numerical advantages to certain minorities unfairly raises the bar for qualified non-minority applicants.


Giving 20-point preferences to black and Hispanic candidates violates the spirit of affirmative action by penalizing non-minority applicants. If the University of Michigan wishes to use race or ethnicity in its admissions process, it shouldn't be part of a quantitative system to choose applicants. While there's nothing wrong with assessing the backgrounds of candidates, there is something wrong with assigning extra points because of race. "Race-neutral admissions policies have resulted in levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to, and in some instances slightly surpass, those under the old race-based approach," said Bush, urging Michigan to find other ways to achieve diversity. Whether Michigan has quotas or not, it crossed the line giving 20-point preferences to minorities in a quantitative admissions process. No society built on merit, hard work and fair play can afford to show such preferences.

http://www.onlinecolumnist.com/012003.html



Rice and Powell both support affirmative action although Rice thinks there should be changes in it. I don't support it at all in any form. They have both used themselves as examples of why it works which just makes me sick honestly.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- one of the highest-ranking members of the Bush administration -- said Friday she believes race can sometimes be considered as "one factor among others" to achieve diversity within a school or university.

The White House released a rare statement from Rice the same day that a story in "The Washington Post" credited her with taking a key role in helping to shape the Bush administration's decision to challenge the affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan.

In her statement, Rice, who is African-American, stressed she agreed with Bush's call for diversity and confirmed that the president had asked her views about the matter before filing the friend-of-the-court briefs. But her statement went further than the briefs filed by the Bush administration on one key point -- whether race could ever be considered a factor in considering admissions.

"I agree with the president's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it," Rice said.

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," Rice said.

In the two briefs filed Thursday with the Supreme Court, the administration, did not specifically address the question of whether race could ever be used as a factor in considering admissions, emphasizing "race-neutral" options.

Asked at a briefing whether Bush believed race could be "any factor," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday that the president decided to file briefs that were "narrowly tailored."

"The president did not want to constitutionally proscribe one way or another except for the fact that it cannot and should not, in the president's judgment, be done through the use of quotas," Fleischer said.

Interviewed Friday on CNN's "Inside Politics" program, longtime Democratic Party official and onetime Clinton White House political adviser Ann Lewis said:

"I'm glad to see Condoleezza Rice says race should be one of the factors. It should, although that is not what the administration's brief says." Lewis also noted that Secretary of State Colin Powell has in the past publicly praised the benefits of affirmative action, saying it has helped thousands of minority youngsters get an education.

"Maybe they ought to continue the debate within the administration," Lewis said.

Rice said when the administration decided to file the briefs in the University of Michigan cases, the president asked for her view on how diversity can best be achieved on university campuses.

She said the view she offered was based on her experience in academia and as provost of a major university. Rice served as provost at Stanford University from 1993 to 1999. She previously served as a professor of political science there, and she has won two of the university's highest teaching honors.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/


Why does Rice think Race should be a factor at all to make sure schools are diverse? I don't care if everyone in the school is white, black, or Asian as along as they earned their way there. We don't need a diverse University's if it means we have to let people who aren't as qualified in over more qualified students.

[Prodigal Son]

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," Rice said.

Think about what she's saying there. Race neutral means are preferable... It means something. I wouldn't try to put her in one box if I were you based on something that has many different variables.

You have to provide her explanation of her words as well. I read them to say that race-neutral is preferable. She is quoted as saying exactly that. She is also quoted as saying she supports the President's policies. Where's the problem? One factor among many. If you have issue with that statement- ask her what it means.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- one of the highest-ranking members of the Bush administration -- said Friday she believes race can sometimes be considered as "one factor among others" to achieve diversity within a school or university."

She also says that she believes race can sometimes be considered as a factor which is contradicting. Race should never be considered a factor, qualifications should.

[Rebellans]

Rice, Powell, Ridge, and Giuliani would all be terrible choices for VP.

Putting a "pro-choicer" on the national GOP ticket would be a disaster. Millions of Republicans (myself included) simply cannot bring themselves to vote for someone who defends the legal killing of innocent human beings.

With all that conservatives have had to put up with in the last couple of years, is it really too much to ask that the GOP ticket stay pro-life?

[Southern Federalist]

There is an assumption made by many posters on this thread that in picking a Vice-President, the President "anoints his successor" and that the Vice-Presidency is a privileged platform on which to run for the Presidency.

There is little historical evidence for this view. Since the Second World War, Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, and Gore have run for President as sitting vice-presidents and lost. The only exception is George H. W. Bush, and he had two extraordinary advantages: Ronald Reagan and Michael Dukakis.

If Bush wants to "anoint a successor" he would do far better to get his candidate elected governor of a state with a big electoral vote.