Rice

Brandon F. writes:

I assume you are waiting to see if Romney makes such a foolish choice.

LA replies:

My jaw is metaphorically agape. By mainstream conservative standards, even by Republican standards, she’s a liberal. Hell, even by RINO standards, she’s a liberal.

And a particularly mindless liberal at that.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

You wrote,

“By mainstream conservative standards, even by Republican standards, she’s a liberal. Hell, even by RINO standards, she’s a liberal. And a particularly mindless liberal at that.”

The mindless Rice got a ringing endorsement as a brilliant choice by the mindless Peggy Noonan!

One hopes this is merely disinformation. If Romney actually chooses Rice, then one must conclude that he is deliberately throwing the election.

LA replies:

Not only from Noonan, but from Sarah Palin. Palin told a TV interviewer, and this is a direct quote: “I think that Condoleezza Rice would be a great vice president.”

Will Palin’s endorsement of Rice finally put the kabosh on the notion that Palin is any kind of conservative?

Paul K. writes:

One of many reasons Rice would be a terrible VP choice for Romney is that it’s likely that she voted for Obama in 2008. Toby Harnden of the Telegraph reached that conclusion:

Consider this scenario. A friend of yours is all coy about revealing the name of the candidate they’d [sic] voted for in the presidential election. But she opines that “the American people are wise in wanting change.” Then she says that “when the election took place and after the election took place, it was a special time for Americans.”

Well, knock me over with a feather if you’d conclude that your buddy had voted for Barack Obama rather than John McCain.

So who are the above quotations from? Step forward Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s Secretary of State.

I hope this Rice balloon is just a bit of silliness to titillate the neocons for a day or two.

Alexis Zarkov writes:

Traditionally, in American elections, the vice presidential candidate provides either regional (e.g. JFK-LBJ) or ideological (e.g. Reagan-Bush) balance to the ticket. After the election, the vice president becomes an irrelevancy. His main function is to sit in the Senate and look bored (e.g. Joe Biden) or give inane speeches (e.g. Joe Biden). As such, the choice of Rice for the ticket would be a largely sterile action. Her candidacy might peel off a few black votes, or cause some white voters to skip the election. Hard to predict the net effect in terms of electoral college votes. I suspect none. However, I find this obvious attempt to go a twofer repulsive, moreover a Rice choice would tell us that with Romney, we will surely get a David Cameron. I want a Nigel Farage (UK Independence Party).

Nile McCoy writes:

Although I hesitate to ascribe any brilliance to Romney or his advisers, floating Rice for Veep I think is just an attempt to win the news cycle heading into the weekend. It gives the Sunday news programs something to talk about other than Bain. I think Romney has been stated on record he wants someone who is or had served as a governor. The name that hasn’t been mentioned for months is Mitch Daniels. If he chooses a senator, logic goes that person would come from a relatively “safe” Republican state. Once again, I go to a game that hasn’t been on anyone’s lips for months, if not over a year: the milquetoast John Thune of South Dakota, Rob Portman of Ohio, or Jim DeMint of South Carolina. The silence over the possibilities of Daniels and Thune is notably deafening.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 13, 2012 10:16 AM | Send