• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How about McCain/Rice?

Why do people think Rice is so qualified to be president? She has even less credentials than, well, some of the current front runners.
 
Condoleeza Rice is a completely worthless "yes (wo)man", just like the rest of the Bush cabinet.

She should not be taken seriously for any job more important than running to starbucks to get a latte.

 
Well if you take her performance in the Bush Administration in account then no, I don't think she'd be a good candidate.
 
I like Dr. Rice immensely, but I think that for political reasons, McCain should choose a different running mate. Dr. Rice is too tainted by association to the current administration.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if you take her performance in the Bush Administration in account then no, I don't think she'd be a good candidate.

So none of you think she could help offset Hillary?


 
Originally posted by: slatr
Would you vote for that combo?

Never McCain, not after the McCain/Feingold bill that attempts to take away our 1st Amendment rights in new and creative ways.


As for Rice, at one time I would have thought so, I still think of her more highly than Powell (another suggested name for an African American to run as a Republican) but in the end the left would just destroy her.

Outside of Guliani (sp) I haven't seen ANYONE of either party I could actually vote for
 
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if you take her performance in the Bush Administration in account then no, I don't think she'd be a good candidate.

So none of you think she could help offset Hillary?

I don't think so. She won't help the black vote as she is seen as a sell out to the "whites" and won't bring that many left leaning or liberal women in as Hillary has a strong, though not iron grip on that group.

So I do not see Rice as an advantage anywhere in 2008.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
I like Dr. Rice immensely, but I think that for political reasons, McCain should choose a different running mate. Dr. Rice is too tainted by association to the current administration.
Yeah for a Republican to win they probably need to distance themselves from the current Administration as much as possible. The American People will not want a repeat of the last 8 years.

 
Originally posted by: yllus
I like Dr. Rice immensely, but I think that for political reasons, McCain should choose a different running mate. Dr. Rice is too tainted by association to the current administration.
McCain has gone over the edge, both in supporting Bush's troop surge and selling his alleged soul to the religious ultra-right nutjobs. Condi's another neocon chickenhawk who should have stuck with playing the piano.

My vote for either of them, let alone both of them on the same ticket is HELL, NO! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: yllus
I like Dr. Rice immensely, but I think that for political reasons, McCain should choose a different running mate. Dr. Rice is too tainted by association to the current administration.
McCain has gone over the edge, both in supporting Bush's troop surge and selling his alleged soul to the religious ultra-right nutjobs. Condi's another neocon chickenhawk who should have stuck with playing the piano.

My vote for either of them, let alone both of them on the same ticket is HELL, NO! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
Word on the street is that you are going to write in Chavez for President😉

 
For McCain to win he has to run away from Bush and anything remotely resembling Bush.
And Rice would just remind everyone about Bush.
So no more Rice for McCain.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Word on the street is that you are going to write in Chavez for President😉
Word on the street is that Cesar Chavez died in 1993 so he won't be running. 😛
 
Originally posted by: techs
For McCain to win he has to run away from Bush and anything remotely resembling Bush.
And Rice would just remind everyone about Bush.
So no more Rice for McCain.

McCain already committed political suicide with recommending MORE troops than Bush's 'Surge'. He's now unelectable due to the extreme unpopularity of the Iraq debacle, and his now entrenched support for expanding it.

That leaves .. Guiliani? Ugh.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Word on the street is that you are going to write in Chavez for President😉
Word on the street is that Cesar Chavez died in 1993 so he won't be running. 😛

He was an excellent boxer, but I just don't think his foreign policy makes any sense.😉
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Word on the street is that you are going to write in Chavez for President😉
Word on the street is that Cesar Chavez died in 1993 so he won't be running. 😛

He was an excellent boxer, but I just don't think his foreign policy makes any sense.😉
Yeah he's kind of "Rummy" Maybe he'd make a good Secty of State:roll::laugh:
 
I don?t think Rice is much of a help for McCain. McCain does not need a VP with foreign policy credentials since he is considered strong on that topic.
McCain would most likely pick someone from the south or Midwest in an attempt to pick up or shore up some states. A strong Republican from one of the winnable blue Midwest states would make a lot of sense. Someone from Florida would make a lot of sense, but Jeb is the only Floridian with wide statewide appeal, and I doubt he goes that route.

I do think Rice might make a good VP choice for Giuliani or Romney. Since they both lack foreign policy experience having someone with her type of experience would make sense.
However there would be a lot of soul searching into whether she would really help or hurt. As much as I like her personally she may have become too tainted by her close association to Bush. And since our elections are becoming more and more about being able to win as opposed to being able to govern her liabilities might hurt her chances.

I do think she could balance out Hillary on a ticket though. And, unlike Hillary, she is scandal free and lacks the baggage of Hillary. So women who may be inclined to vote for Hillary because she is a female may look at Rice and decide to vote for her instead.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
unlike Hillary, she is scandal free and lacks the baggage of Hillary
Wrong, Rice is smack in the middle of a Scandal of much larger proportions that anything Hillary or even Bill were involved in..the debacle in Iraq.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if you take her performance in the Bush Administration in account then no, I don't think she'd be a good candidate.

Rice
National Security Advisor . . . she appeared clueless.
Secretary of State . . . ineffective.

McCain
Stood up for basic human rights and the fidelity of the US Constitution . . . then rolled over when Bush barked.
Made that sycophant plea at a campaign '08 appearance that people should 'vote' for the President instead of himself.
Supports an even larger US troop presence for the purpose of 'solving' an Iraqi civil war.


McCain has lost most cred and Rice never had any. If he can pull together the money, Hagel is the only one with a chance from the Senate. From the statehouse, it's likely Romney. The darkhorse is Newt . . . assuming social conservatives will tolerate him. About the only guaranteed non-starter is Guiliani.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Never McCain, not after the McCain/Feingold bill that attempts to take away our 1st Amendment rights in new and creative ways.

In what way? Our system is currently a disaster from all the corporate money pouring in, and that's hardly a constitutional right.

It didn't exist - it was explicitly ruled against many times - before a clerical error in the 1860's put a claim of corporations having rights as 'persons' under the 14th amendment, passed for former slaves not corporations, led to it becoming law. Our nation did just fine without it, and now our leaders serve the big money donors and the voters are marketed to but not so much represented. We've practically lost democracy on many important areas of society, which is reflected in our huge, growing debt.

Sometimes, the corporate money isn't enough as with the 2006 elections' backlash by voters, but it's a major issue.

There are two basic types of money that go to campaigns - that from citizens, a small amount, for them to push the candidate they like; and that from large 'special interests', especially large corporations and trade groups, who are pushing not only for policies that help them but for those policies which are against the public interest, too (you don't much need to donate to get a law passed the public would like).
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
unlike Hillary, she is scandal free and lacks the baggage of Hillary
Wrong, Rice is smack in the middle of a Scandal of much larger proportions that anything Hillary or even Bill were involved in..the debacle in Iraq.
I don't think you can paint it that way though. Hillary voted for the war and has been in support of it since the start. Just recently did she start to back away from her support.
Hillary has as much of an Iraq war problem as Rice does.
 
Back
Top