As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Drudge: Rice Near the Top of Romney’s VP List

The Drudge Report is reporting that Condoleezza Rice is near the top of the list of Romney vice presidential prospects, and that the announcement is expected in the “coming weeks,” some time before the GOP convention.

Leading Republican columnist Peggy Noonan tries to boost her candidacy by opining it might be “a brilliant choice.”

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

23 Responses to Drudge: Rice Near the Top of Romney’s VP List

  1. Peggy Noonan? The same “Republican” columnist who fell under the hypnotic trance of King Putt and pulled the rug out from under “Republican” candidate McCain? Don’t think I’d be looking to her for recommendations for candidates.

    Condi Rice is an intelligent woman but she is a Bush crony and carries a lot of baggage around from that administration. Besides, I’d want to know if she voted for Obama because I have a sneaking suspicion she did.

    Then there is the Van Jones endorsement…
    http://www.mrctv.org/node/111519

    • I agree with you , Susan. She is a smart woman but she carries, like you say, the “Bush burden” and would have to be defensive all the time. I also think that she lacks charisma. Romney is by many considered a somewhat boring politician ( I disagree! ) so he needs a more “sparkling” partner, I think. But competence without the baggage is of course most important.

    • As an aside, hate to see Van Jones treated as respectable and knowledgeable. Besides being as mean as a snake, he’s been, to say the least, sycophantic to any weird leftist cause that came along. ACK.

    • I’m with Susan here. Condi is indeed brilliant buy why on earth add someone to the ticket associated with Bush? It’s sheer madness and in my opinion, a sure loss for Romney. I adore Condi as a woman, I find ehr extraordinary in every way, but VP? Not now. not Romney.

  2. Horrors! Condi was overjoyed at the election of Comrade Barry (and probably voted for him). She praised the “Arab Spring” and deeply dislikes Israel (and I’m putting that mildly). She also compared the “Palestinian” use of their children as human shields to black children killed in the Birmingham church bombing.

    This will not help Mitt. He needs to consolidate the conservative base, not frolic with RINOs.

  3. If MrRomney does pick her for his VP MrObama might want to reserve that U-Haul truck for January. I hear that most people rent the moving trucks near the end of the month, so he needs to think ahead.

    Just thinking about a debate between Condi and Joe makes me smile.

  4. I think she has said no on numerous occasions and I believe she means NO.
    There are a lot of reservations as noted by others and I don’t see it happening.
    She seems happy doing what she does now I doubt it will be Condi Rice.

  5. While Condi to me is acceptable (if he runs with a toilet plunger for VP, you still have to vote for him or we will all suffer the consequences) I really like Allen West. He would be hard of foreign policy, and would eviscerate Biden in the debates. That alone would be worth the price of the ticket

    • Agree with you on Allen West, Jeff. His breadth and depth of knowledge about American history and Islam is amazing. If Mitt picked Allen West as his VP, he would most assuredly fire up the Tea Party base.

  6. Choosing Condi would be a direct violation of Romney’s own “Ready from Day 1” to serve as President criteria. No elective office, no business experience that I am aware of, an academic by career choice. As Susan and Swedishlady mention, she has the Bush baggage also. Overall, a poor choice that sends a desperation message.

  7. Selecting Condi would represent a token offering (pun intended) to the black and female communities at the same time. That is all. She is a member for the CFR and conservative only in dress. She would achieve the purpose of getting the votes for Mitt but not move our current Socialist government back to the right. Safe move but not effective.

  8. Romney/Rice cuts into 5-10% of the Black vote.

    Romney/Rice cuts into the “Republican War on Women” bullshit vote.

    With the youth vote from 08′ asleep at the switch, this could very well guarantee that Barry will be writing his third memoir from the beach at Lanikai next year.

    And we’ve got a problem with that over some bad feelings about George W.?

  9. I believe this is essentially a side show. Condi Rice is a great American, with a wonderful background. But she has made it very clear that she is simply not in the game. Having indicated her heart is not in it, why on earth would Mitt Romney select her as his running mate? Purely for her foreign policy expertise?

    This election cycle will be more about putting our house in order at home. It’s about the economy.

    Yes, the President will try to make the case that Romney has no foreign policy experience, but then, neither did he back in 2008. And, Obama’s pick for Veep in 2008 was a very well know dolt on foreign policy (among several other disciplines) prior to joining the ticket. It didn’t matter.

    Secondly, Condi’s career path does not point in this direction. It is true that she has had administrative experience running Stanford, and the State Department.

    But she has never run for an elective office. And that is very important when it comes to someone helping you, or at least not hurting you on the campaign trail.

    When was the last time a major presidential candidate — Republican or Democrat — selected a running mate with no experience as a candidate actually running for a high level office, such as Governor, Congressman, Senator? I think it was way back in 1972 when George McGovern selected Sargent Shriver — and then only after his first pick, U.S. Senator Thomas Eagleton was compelled to withdraw! How did that work out for them? (And, by the way, Sargent Shriver did have well-known Presidential campaign experience and expertise on a staff level as an organizer, garnered during the primary drive leading up to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race.)

    Prior to ’72, the last major party Veep selection without any elective experience was Henry A. Wallace, who was the running mate for Franklin Roosevelt back in 1940. He eventually left to become Commerce Sec’y and then-Senator Truman joined the Roosevelt ticket in ’44.

    My point is that throughout our modern era, and even before, the major parties have very rarely selected people who have never proven their ability to run for or hold elective office to be either their standard-bearer, or their Vice-Presidential running mates.

    The only major party Presidential candidate with no prior elective experience during our modern era, was Dwight D. Eisenhower in the ’50s. And because of the enormity of his fame and extraordinary service to the nation as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II, I think it’s safe to characterize him as having been the exception that actually proves the rule. Both major parties tried to recruit him as their candidate.

    Condi does have an admirable following. But she has no elective base, and would have to go through a period of on-the-job training to get the knack of actually being a major party candidate.

    I believe her speech to the Romney crowd a few weeks back was intended to lay a proper foundation for the Romney campaign to make its case to the American public on foreign policy. No one was better qualified for that role. I also expect she’ll be a top level adviser to the Romney campaign on foreign policy.

    But the Vice-Presidential candidate? I don’t think it’s in the cards.

    My humble guess would be Rob Portman of Ohio.

    Now there’s a guy who knows how to participate in, and win elections!

    None of his opponents during his several (6) House of Representatives runs in his Ohio district ever cracked 30% of the vote against him. And in his most recent statewide race for his U.S. Senate run in Ohio, his opponent didn’t even get to 40% of the vote!

    • As an Ohioan, it pains me to say this but no on Portman. Have you seen the legislation he recently proposed–The Global Conservation Act of 2012 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.3356:) sounds an awful lot (IMO) like Agenda 21 legislation–we have written to our Senator to ask him specifically what his stand is on the UN’s Agenda 21 (still waiting to hear back).

      Also, not sure Portman is as conservative as I would like (just like Romney). Check out the following article:

      But the real problem is Portman’s record. The reason Romney is likely enamored with Portman is that he’s about as conservative as Romney.

      The Club for Growth rates him at #29 in the Senate, tied with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), with an 80% score in 2011 and an 80% lifetime score. For comparison, Sens. Jim DeMint and Rand Paul have a 100% score and Sen. Marco Rubio is at 97%. He scored a dismal 69% on Heritage Action’s scorecard, south of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

      Here are some examples of votes that should cause us to oppose Portman as the VP choice (thanks to the excellent research of the Medina Tea Party Patriots):

      § Senator Portman supported debt ceiling increases.

      § Senator Portman supported the failed Gang of 6 plan.

      § Senator Portman refused to speak out against the appointment of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). [Senator Portman went even further by emailing a letter that indicates support for Cordray, had the CFPB been restructured with more oversight. Senator Portman’s email that stated “I had a good meeting with Rich and I am glad a fellow Ohioan was nominated.”

      § Senator Portman supported the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

      § Senator Portman served on the failed Deficit Reduction Committee (Super Committee).

      § Senator Portman has refused to take a stance on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

      § Senator Portman, speaking about Senator Dick Lugar’s defeat at the hands of the Tea Party groups in Indiana, stated, “Obviously in a Republican primary a more conservative candidate can articulate the issues and sometimes has an advantage and that was the case there,” Portman said. “Look, maybe I’m naïve about this, but it’s not so much about ideology as it is about a willingness to find a result.”

      On the same day he issued the press release explaining why he couldn’t vote for the Transportation Bill, he issued another press release grandstanding about how was able to load it up with pork that benefits Ohio…how he fought for the Asian Carp eradication plan:

      “Bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to stop Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes’ ecosystem passed both houses of Congress today and is now poised to become law…

      …The Stop Invasive Species Act was included as part of comprehensive, bipartisan transportation legislation that must be passed by week’s end to keep the country’s highway trust fund from going broke. The transportation legislation addresses a wide variety of infrastructure and construction projects across the country. Both houses of Congress passed the bill on a bipartisan basis today and President Obama has said he will sign it.”

      This is the worst kind of political doublespeak and deception. It was obvious that the Senate had enough votes to pass the bill and Portman could vote against it, knowing his Asian carp pork could pass while he had the political cover of voting ‘no’ on the bill, appearing to take a conservative position.

      Even worse, this was a backroom deal that wasn’t even debated in the House and Senate. The provision for controlling Asian carp in the Great Lakes was added as a rider – it doesn’t even appear in either the House or Senate version of the bill and was not passed by either house, frustrating Sen. Dan Coates (R-IN), whose state will likely be impacted by new regulations.

      If you’re still not convinced that Sen. Portman would be a really bad choice as Mitt Romney’s running mate, take a look at this scary looking bill Portman introduced in the Senate last week. The text of the bill is not yet available, but the description of it should, at minimum, make us wonder if he is drinking the Agenda 21 tea:

      S.3356
      Latest Title: A bill to strengthen the role of the United States in the international community of nations in conserving natural resources to further global prosperity and security.
      Sponsor: Sen Portman, Rob [OH] (introduced 6/28/2012) Cosponsors (3)
      Latest Major Action: 6/28/2012 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

      So, that’s “Why not Sen. Rob Portman in the Veepstakes.”

      If Mitt Romney wants to motivate conservatives, Tea Party activists, and evangelicals to work for him in this election, he needs to choose a running mate that is not an insult to their conservative sensibilities. They (we) already suspect his claims of a conservative reformation. He would only further damage his tenuous relationship with this vital source of support with a severe moderate as a VP choice.
      http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2012/07/05/why-not-senator-rob-portman-in-the-veepstakes/

      • Your first link — to a table of contents at the Library of Congress blog — left me scratching my head. Suffice it to say, I don’t ordinarily make judgments about legislation someone has (or is about to introduce), merely based on a title. And if I understand your comment, you haven’t seen or read the legislation either, but you are concerned that it sounds like UN Agenda 21 legislation.

        To be honest, that (a title and no substance) would not convincing enough for me to conclude that someone is somehow unqualified or unsuitable as a candidate for the Vice Presidential nod! But I’ll certainly keep an open mind as to substance, and how the legislation would affect our country.

        I cited his election statistics, above, as a basis for concluding that he is certainly a capable campaigner — one very necessary quality of a candidate, and one which makes me question whether Condi Rice would be a good selection — which is what this post is about. For a guy who is attacked for being “dull” and with less name recognition than Joe the Plumber, Portman has somehow managed to overcome that reputation when it comes to election day — every single time he has run!

        But, like you, I too would want to hear more about him.

        Secondly, the rest of your comment is taken up with a wholesale quote from a post at Eric Erickson’s RedState blog. I’ll take some time and go through it, but to me many of the criticisms seem a little thin.

        Where do you stand? Who do you support?