Romney and Rice

Published by

Clarissa

July 13, 2012

If Romney chose Condoleezza Rice as his running mate, would that change your opinion of him in a positive direction? A negative direction? Wouldn’t change it at all?

Of course, I know it won’t happen, but if it did, I’d feel much better about Romney. Rice is pro-choice and selecting her as a running mate would signal Romney’s willingness to dump the religious fanatics. This is the only thing that, in my opinion, can save the Republican Party. Unless that happens, there will be no Conservatism in this country any more. There will only remain endless howling from out-of-control maniacs who know nothing but their terror of contemporary reality.

Then again, this would be the most non-charismatic presidential ticket in living memory, and I’m sure Romney’s campaign understands that something needs to be done urgently to soften the candidate’s extreme lack of appeal.

Rate this:

22 responses to “Romney and Rice”

Matt

July 13, 2012

Interesting you brought Rice up today. I have for the last few months said she would be the best pick. There was a pretty good article (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/rumors-of-mass-distraction-why-condi-rice-would-be-an-awful-vp-choice/259786/) about while she is moderate on some of the social issues, her area of expertise is foreign policy, and not many would claim the last administration was a foreign policy juggernat (although I do think they are better than some on the left depict them).

Also, not that we haven’t argued enough on this topic but the issue of being pro-life on abortion in my estimation is not at all evidence of the republicans being beholdened to the religious right. Majority of the country is pro-life (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/23/fewer-americans-pro-choice-abortion) although slightly more say they are only pro-life morally, and not legally. I do agree the Republicans are too beholdened to the religious right on issues like gay marriage where there is little justification for their view point. Just thought that was a very important distinction. Republicans gay marriage stance can and likley will cost a few votes. Highly unlikely their abortion stance will.

LikeLike

Reply
the twisted spinster

July 13, 2012

That would be neat but… I’ve been fooled before. And I’m afraid Condoleeza Rice will remember what the Republican Party did to Sarah Palin — who is much more conservative than she is — and say “no thanks.”

LikeLike

Reply
Z

July 13, 2012

She would have to officially change her stance on abortion to survive as a candidate, I am sure. And as Matt points out, she is a foreign policy person. Obama administration is bad on foreign policy and HRC is a secretary of state from Hell as far as I am concerned, but Rice is many degrees worse and she has experience, which may make her more powerful and dangerous still. So no, this does not make the ticket more attractive, it makes it yet more grotesquely scary.

LikeLike

Reply
thevenerablecorvex

July 14, 2012

I recall that back during the Bush administration, even liberal comentators in the media had a habit of singling Dr. Rice out for praise. I never understood this, because she honestly seemed exactly as bad as everyone else in that administration.

LikeLike

Reply
Leah Jane

July 14, 2012

Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen of Condi Rice, for all that she has in brains (she’s tremendously smart) she lacks a serious deficit in spine. A person’s intelligence can only go so far if they let themselves be constantly subservient to those who are far stupider than them, which seems to be her preferred modus operandi.

LikeLike

Reply
NancyP

July 14, 2012

Romney can’t afford to choose Rice. Romney MUST appease the religious wingnuts who are the Republican Party’s foot soldiers for Get Out The Vote, and Romney can’t afford to alienate the Angry White Man contingent. Romney has already done his “hey look suburban upper middle class white voters, I’M NOT RACIST” bit by showing up and getting heckled for making derogatory remarks about “Obamacare” (itself a derogatory term in typical use) at the NAACP annual meeting. This theater reassures the upper middle class white voters that they are not racist, even though they are happy to do exactly bupkis nada zip about urban black children’s education, etc.

On another note, a relatively sane religious radio personality, “theologian of the air”, Hank Hannegraaf, brought up how Romney isn’t really Christian, because Mormon/ Latter Day Saints Church does not have historically Christian small-o orthodox theology (true). One tidbit he mentioned is that Mormons believe that Jesus’ Second Coming will occur in Independence MO, in the western half of the state. From what I have heard from local LDS/ Mormon members (I seem to work with a lot), Adam and Eve’s Paradise was in Independence, and during the Second Coming/ Millenium, Jesus will make a star appearance there, after he shows up in Jerusalem.

Truly, LDS is pure (U.S.) Americana – only USians would think that Missouri was ever Paradise! 😉

LikeLike

Reply
Brittany-Ann

July 14, 2012

It would make me think less of him. His appearance at the NAACP wasn’t to appeal to the NAACP, it was his “I have black friends!” moment. It was just so blatant. I feel like bringing up Rice is another one of those moments. I don’t think he’ll actually choose her.

Also? The GOP thought that choosing a woman as McCain’s running mate back in 2008 would help him. It didn’t. Not they’re talking about a woman of color? It’s tokenism. They’re just throwing in more tokens as time goes on. I wonder what they’ll add in 2016.

LikeLike

Reply
AYY

July 15, 2012

“The GOP thought that choosing a woman as McCain’s running mate back in 2008 would help him. It didn’t”

Not sure that it didn’t. You can’t tell how McCain would have done with a male running mate. The leftist media and leftist women did a hatchet job on Palin. If they’d spent half the effort they put into destroying Palin, into looking at Obama’s history, things might have been very different.

“derogatory remarks about “Obamacare” (itself a derogatory term in typical use) at the NAACP annual meeting. ”

Obama had a lot to do with it so he ought to be blamed for it. If it’s a derogatory term , then what’s wrong with using a derogatory term for something that deserves derogation?

“his theater reassures the upper middle class white voters that they are not racist, even though they are happy to do exactly bupkis nada zip about urban black children’s education, etc.”

Don’t blame the Republicans for that. Urban black children’s education is in the hands of urban school boards, most of whom are Democrats. Sen. Kennedy wrote the No Child Left Behind Act. The teachers these days are products of Education Departments in universities, where they’re exposed to Friere’s theories and to profs like Bill Ayers . The teachers’ unions also have a say in the kind of education kids get, and they’re not exactly Republican.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Culture Club
  
  July 15, 2012
  
  If they’d spent half the effort they put into destroying Palin, into looking at Obama’s history, things might have been very different.
  
  Right. They chased her with such hard hitting investigative journalism questions as “do you read newspapers” and “do you have foreign policy experience”. I mean it was a veritable witch hunt.
  
  /sarcasm
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. AYY
    
    July 16, 2012
    
    Culture Club:
    Sounds like you weren’t paying much attention during the 2008 campaign. They did a lot more than that.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  July 15, 2012
  
  “Sen. Kennedy wrote the No Child Left Behind Act.”
  
  – Yes, that was a huge disgrace.
  
  “The teachers these days are products of Education Departments in universities”
  
  – That is simply not true. We prepare teachers at my department of foreign languages. None of our student-teachers spend a second at the Dept. of Education.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. AYY
    
    July 16, 2012
    
    Clarissa, are you saying that there’s no College of Education in your university? Sure there are alternative ways of becoming a teacher, but many universities have Colleges of Educaton, and the vast majority of teachers at the secondary and elementary levels go through them. The ones who get their credential a different way are in a distinct minority.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      July 16, 2012
      
      We have a Dept. Of education but it isn’t by far the only place teachers are trained.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Spanish Prof

July 15, 2012

Dick Cheney was pro- gay marriage. I don’t think Romney choosing Rice means he is willing to dump the religious right. And it certainly would not change my opinion of him. Choosing somebody whose devotion to G.W Bush was borderline pathological is not an indication of good judgement.

LikeLike

Reply
Z

July 15, 2012

“where they’re exposed to Freyre’s theories and to profs like Bill Ayers”

I wish this were more true.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  July 15, 2012
  
  I don´t know much about Ayers, but what is supposed to be wrong with Freyre? He was one of the greatest pedagogues ever. Why would anybody have a problem with future teachers being exposed to Freyre?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. AYY
    
    July 16, 2012
    
    If you’re serious about wanting to know what’s wrong with Freire, you might want to start with this:
    http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html
    An excerpt:
    “Freire isn’t interested in the Western tradition’s leading education thinkers—not Rousseau, not Piaget, not John Dewey, not Horace Mann, not Maria Montessori. He cites a rather different set of figures: Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro, as well as the radical intellectuals Frantz Fanon, Régis Debray, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, and Georg Lukács. And no wonder, since Freire’s main idea is that the central contradiction of every society is between the “oppressors” and the “oppressed” and that revolution should resolve their conflict”
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      July 16, 2012
      
      I have read the original, so I don’t really need a clumsy retelling. 🙂 I want to remind that I have 22 years of pedagogic experience which enables me to say that Freire is no danger to anybody. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
    2. bloggerclarissa
      
      July 16, 2012
      
      Fanon., Marcuse, Sartre, Althusser and Lukacz are the leading thinkers of the XX century. Quoting them does not discredit anybody.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. AYY
    
    July 18, 2012
    
    Z, Why are you responding with such venom to something I addressed to Clarissa? But yes, I’ve had the misfortune to have read most of them. Have you read them? If so, you have my sympathies. As far as thinking goes, they can’t hold a candle to Yogi Berra. And since you asked me if I read the authors, have you read the City Journal article?
    
    BTW, Your argument about spelling isn’t with me, it’s with Wikipedia, (or I guess you would spell it “Wykypedya”)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire
    It’s also with his publishers
    http://www.amazon.com/Paulo-Freire/e/B000AP9COK.
    
    .
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
AYY

July 16, 2012

Clarissa, 12:30. You asked why would anyone have a problem with Friere. I responded.

12:33 That’s a joke, right?

LikeLike

Reply
1. Z
  
  July 16, 2012
  
  No, and who the heck are you? You do not seem to actually know much as you consistently misspell Freyre’s name … have you actually read any of these people?
  
  Anyway, on the ticket: Rice would have to change her position on abortion if actually nominated.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply