Vice President Condoleezza Rice?

troposphere

Drudge Report reporting that she is frontrunner as the possible VP pick. I like her and she comes across good so it will at least make the election more exciting if she gets picked.

ROMNEY NARROWS VP CHOICES; CONDI EMERGES AS FRONTRUNNER
Thu Jul 12 2012 19:30:01 ET

**Exclusive**

Late Thursday evening, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign launched a new fundraising drive, 'Meet The VP' -- just as Romney himself has narrowed the field of candidates to a handful, sources reveal.

And a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!

The timing of the announcement is now set for 'coming weeks'.

MORE

It was Condi who received two standing ovations at Romney's Utah retreat a few weeks ago, and everyone left with her name on their lips.

Rice made an extended argument for American leadership in the world.

In recent days, she emailed supporters:

"2012 is perhaps a turning point for the United States."

"The upcoming elections loom as one of the most important in my lifetime," she warned. "I'm very often asked to speak about our current foreign policy and the challenges that lie before us. However, we, as a country, are not going to be able to address any of those international challenges unless we first get our domestic house in order."

Developing...

[Link]

matthew8

Drudge is a load of crap.

troposphere

Ann Romney last week said they were considering a woman. Martinez has only been Arizona Governor since 2011, Haley got low poll ratings in her own state, Ayotte is New England Republican like Romney, and Fallin would be a boring pick.

matthew8

It's all faking. They want to show that they're considering black people and women, but Rice would be an awful choice. For many conservatives picking her would be the last straw, and let's not forget her role in the Bush administration. It will most likely be a boring white guy.

troposphere

Maybe you are right but I would not be surprised. This is the same guy that chose another female who never held office over a white guy before.

It was April 2002. Massachusetts Republicans found themselves with two candidates for lieutenant governor: Jim Rappaport and Kerry Healey. Rappaport won the endorsement of the Republican state convention, but despite having promised to stay neutral in the race, Mitt Romney chose to get up on stage with Healey. The memory still rankles Rappaport.

“It was totally inappropriate, because I had won the convention, and convincingly. So when he stood up, they actually got booed at the convention. When he brought her up like that, they actually got booed,” remembers Rappaport.

[link]

matthew8

I can't completely dismiss the possibility either, but a Rice selection would not only hurt Romney's turnout, but it would be very bad for downballot races.

Amerika

I see a recent CNN poll of Republicans indicated the choices for Vice President top out with Rice, Santorum, Rubio, Ryan, Christie and Jindal. And yet we’re still called the party of bigoted old white men LOL.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I see a recent CNN poll of Republicans indicated the choices for Vice President top out with Rice, Santorum, Rubio, Ryan, Christie and Jindal. And yet we’re still called the party of bigoted old white men LOL.

They'll happily choose an ethnic minority as VP to win the election.

Who fought it out for the big seat though; Gingrich, Santorum and Romeny. Old White men.

Suryavarman

briankeating wrote: »

They'll happily choose an ethnic minority as VP to win the election.

Who fought it out for the big seat though; Gingrich, Santorum and Romeny. Old White men.

Don't forget Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann both of whom were favourites at one stage.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Don't forget Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann both of whom were favourites at one stage.

I'm not having that. They were "favourites" based on polls, not on actual votes. Once the primaries began they were gone.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

I'm not having that. They were "favourites" based on polls, not on actual votes. Once the primaries began they were gone.

Nothing to see here... please move along, eh?

Suryavarman

briankeating wrote: »

I'm not having that. They were "favourites" based on polls, not on actual votes. Once the primaries began they were gone.

So in other words you're just going to reject anything that shows your opinion to be incorrect. That makes for a productive discussion.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I'm not having that. They were "favourites" based on polls, not on actual votes. Once the primaries began they were gone.

So in other words you're just going to reject anything that shows your opinion to be incorrect. That makes for a productive discussion.

No. Your point is poor as they were never actual contenders. How did they do in actual votes cast by real republicans? Give me some numbers showing that actual republicans voted for them as nominees and you might have a point.

Spuriously throwing out names that made a few headlines does not mean anything.

Rich, old, White men were the only ones who actually contended for the nomination.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I'm not having that. They were "favourites" based on polls, not on actual votes. Once the primaries began they were gone.

Nothing to see here... please move along, eh?

No. Make a factually based point, with actual evidence or move along. I thought that's what intelligent debate was?

Ellis Dee

Condo Lizzie will be forever tainted by her association with the knuckle-dragging Bush Jr. No one could possibly want to go back to those days or any relic of it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cardinal Richelieu

Romeny has family that are Mexican citizens.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

No. Make a factually based point, with actual evidence or move along. I thought that's what intelligent debate was?

They stayed in the race longer than some others. Bachmann even won 2 delegates, Perry got none. They chose to drop out on their own. Who knows what would have happened if they stayed in. They were given every opportunity as all the others. You many not like it but those are the facts.

Suryavarman

briankeating wrote: »

No. Your point is poor as they were never actual contenders. How did they do in actual votes cast by real republicans? Give me some numbers showing that actual republicans voted for them as nominees and you might have a point.

Spuriously throwing out names that made a few headlines does not mean anything.

Rich, old, White men were the only ones who actually contended for the nomination.

Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll last year and Herman Cain was still performing strongly in the polls before he dropped out of the race. If the affair allegations never came out there is a good chance that the Republican nomination might still be up for grabs.

kenco

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Condo Lizzie will be forever tainted by her association with the knuckle-dragging Bush Jr. No one could possibly want to go back to those days or any relic of it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Agree kind of! Rice is a very divisive figure even in the Dubya administration. Can't see a control freak like Romney wanting a some what big name VP let alone Rice with all the baggage she would bring.

Always thought Romney would go for an ex military VP to reinforce him and also to take orders and not question. Couple of years back I thought Patreus might be the ideal VP but don't think he is interested or inclined. In a bizarre way Biden would be the perfect running mate for Romney! Much as I have no ideas who he will pick I think Romney is at sea on this one and his final choice will give and instight to where his head is at

timothybryce

matthew8 wrote: »

It's all faking. They want to show that they're considering black people and women, but Rice would be an awful choice. For many conservatives picking her would be the last straw, and let's not forget her role in the Bush administration. It will most likely be a boring white guy.

briankeating wrote: »

They'll happily choose an ethnic minority as VP to win the election.

Who fought it out for the big seat though; Gingrich, Santorum and Romeny. Old White men.

Is there something wrong with old white men?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

No. Make a factually based point, with actual evidence or move along. I thought that's what intelligent debate was?

They stayed in the race longer than some others. Bachmann even won 2 delegates, Perry got none. They chose to drop out on their own. Who knows what would have happened if they stayed in. They were given every opportunity as all the others. You many not like it but those are the facts.

Lol, they dropped out on their own? Who knows what would have happened if they stayed in??????

Come on. They dropped out because they hadn't a hope, you can't seroiously make a case otherwise.

Well done Michelle on winning 2 delegates. Excellent performance, proved me totally wrong- nonsense.

Brian?

timothybryce wrote: »

matthew8 wrote: »

It's all faking. They want to show that they're considering black people and women, but Rice would be an awful choice. For many conservatives picking her would be the last straw, and let's not forget her role in the Bush administration. It will most likely be a boring white guy.

briankeating wrote: »

They'll happily choose an ethnic minority as VP to win the election.

Who fought it out for the big seat though; Gingrich, Santorum and Romeny. Old White men.

Is there something wrong with old white men?

Nothing at all. I was making a counterpoint to Amerika.

matthew8

timothybryce wrote: »

Is there something wrong with old white men?

No, but it's who Romney is picking probably.

troposphere

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Condo Lizzie will be forever tainted by her association with the knuckle-dragging Bush Jr. No one could possibly want to go back to those days or any relic of it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war and Obama has a kill list. What exactly are they going to be able to criticize her about?

Interviews with 1,015 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on April 13-15, 2012. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample also includes 910 interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3.5 percentage points).
The sample includes 759 interviews among landline respondents and 256 interviews among cell phone respondents.

BASED ON 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

RESULTS FOR REPUBLICANS ONLY

Former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
Favorable
80%
Unfavorable
12%
Never heard of
4%
No opinion
4%


And of the people I just mentioned, which one would you most like to see Mitt Romney choose as his vice presidential running mate if Romney wins the Republican presidential nomination? (LIST ONLY READ IF RESPONDENT REQUESTED. RANDOM ORDER IF LIST READ.) April 13-15 2012

Rice 26%
Santorum 21%
Christie 14%
Rubio 14%
Ryan 8%
Jindal 5%
McDonnell 1%
Portman *
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/no one (vol.) 2%
No opinion 4%

steelcityblues

She is an intelligent woman, but she used that intelligence to go down the path of neo-conservatism, as opposed to more moderate conservatism. You can bet the media will really tear the republicans apart if she gets the nod.

cristoir

Given Romney's perceived position as a moderate I imagine the VP pick will be a tea-party darling. Rice would however be the best pick for convincing independent voters. But the GOP needs to give the tea party something. A completely establishment ticket wouldn't go down great.

troposphere

Well I am not a conservative or pollster but are the people who think Romney is a RINO but absolutely hate Obama really going to stay home if the race is close? I think they will hold their nose and vote for him anyway. So then it makes more sense to try to get a VP like Rice who could possibly pull in more moderates. I look at many of the VP candidates and they look boring and since the Romney campaign is also boring they need something to give it a bit of excitement. McCain tried something similar with Palin but she was unknown and foreign policy is basically what journalists will pounce on if they think you are weak which Rice would not have to worry about. I did not like the Bush administration but never got the same type of dislike to Rice compared to some of the others.

sarumite

She is considered by many to have been too much of a "yes" person, especially compared to Colin Powell and Hilary Clinton. That said, she is a southerner so that does go in her favour. Ah, who knows?!?

ArmaniJeanss

FWIW here is the betting.
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/republican-vice-presidential-nominee

Condaleeze Rice 9/4 favourite with Powers, 6/1 with Ladbrokes.
Rob Portman 7/4 favourite with Ladbrokes and just under 2/1 on the 'true market' of Betfair.

Clearly still a wide open race.

Prices subject to change if link clicked on at later stage.

Duck Soup

The Rice story 'broke' on the same day as Romney did five TV interviews on the subject of his time at Bain Capital.

Timeline goes as follows. Boston Globe runs a story that, although Romney claimed to have left Bain Capital in 1999 (and was therefore not responsible for a load of sacking of US workers and outsourcing under Bain's control after that date), papers lodged at the SEC show Romney to be still listed as CEO, President and sole owner at Bain as late as 2002, as well as pulling in a six figure salary from Bain at the same time.

The attacks on Romney's record at Bain are hurting him, particularly in the all-important swing states, so he goes into manic damage limitation mode across all the major networks.

Same day as he's trying to do the TV pushback, the Condi for Veep story 'breaks' on Drudge, thereby creating a welcome distraction. Funny how these things work.

poeticseraphim

She made huge mistakes during her time as secretary of state.

She failed to keep track of spintering movements in the east focusing on large states.

Whatever about who voted in favour of Iraq she was a key part of the administration that oversaw the war operation. And she helped make decisions that were responsible for key mistakes.

She came from an acedemi bakground ....and it showed

She accomplished little in her time as seretary of state and failed to realie how much America had ruined it's reputation and wrecked any chances of co-operation on the world stage.

She was naive and inexperienced ...and she did not know it....her office experienced staffing issues which she did not organize. It was badly run during her time there. She had a totally inaccurate view on weapon capability of nations outside America and she was in charge of informing the administration.

She is firm in her support of affirmative action 55% of Americans are not ( why who knows?) . Many Black Americans do not relate to her.

She has repeatedly said she does NOT want the job.

Nor would she be able to do it.

After Iraq declaired it had no weapons of mass destruction she wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled 'Why We Know Iraq Is Lying'. People often point to the fact that many other politicians voted yes for war in Iraq or post Bush administration policies on Iraq...valid points..but a lot of this was based on her incorrect information. She has been accused by Dik Cheney of misleading her president during her time as Secretary of State.

She personally conveyed the Bush admin's support for torture to the CIA and he authorized it and then later lied about it despite a written letter from her reporting such.

She was a key player in the misinformation surrounding the Iraq war and inn incorrect policies and how badly they were executed.

She was a disaster.

She is totally unsuited to the position.

sarumite

poeticseraphim wrote: »

She made huge mistakes during her time as secretary of state.

I don't know if I would say she has made huge mistakes, but her reputation has definitely been dented by Clinton superior performance as SoS. Condi would have been a good choice in '08, probably not in '12.

matthew8

Alright I don't like her very much and I don't think she'll be picked, but it's sounding more plausible. The polls show Rice gives Romney a big bump. She's also a safe choice. If I was Romney I would pick her to give me the best chance.

Amerika

sarumite wrote: »

I don't know if I would say she has made huge mistakes, but her reputation has definitely been dented by Clinton superior performance as SoS. Condi would have been a good choice in '08, probably not in '12.

Opinion or Fact? If just your opinion... fine. If fact, please share with us her "superior performance" as it compares to Condi Rice?

Overall I’d say she did a fine job as SoS, as did Rice. Clinton had some initial successes, but lately (IMO) it’s been pretty lackluster.