With the Annapolis Middle East Summit, many column inches across the nation were devoted to Secretary of State Rice’s “legacy.” While the conference was historic in that it simply occurred, the real diplomatic activity that might help define Condi’s tenure as SoS may be taking place on a little reported issue with regards to US Foreign policy, but very central to the Middle East, the War on Terror, Climate Change (a.k.a. “Global Warming”) and our economy. That issue is energy.

Secretary Rice has had the tough job of continuing to reject the flawed Kyoto Protocol in the face of widespread international support. Kyoto, although championed by Al Gore, was never actively promoted for ratification for years by the Clinton administration – even he realized that the one-sided impact of the treaty would be a severe competitive disadvantage for the US economy. (See, Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and The Elephant and the Dragon)

President George W. Bush opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions, preferring voluntary goals. He believes the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unfairly exempted rapidly developing countries and that ratifying it would have hurt the economy of the United States… Environmental News Network, article, “World Energy Revolution Needed for Climate,” Sept. 25, 2007

However, by combining the near global hysteria over global warming* to our own strategic energy interests that scream for alternatives to fossil fuels and a Democratically controlled Congress with few accomplishments to show voters in 2008, Dr. Rice has quietly (thanks to minimal press coverage), albeit slowly, started to enlist international and domestic support for a “global revolution” in energy. Her chief lieutenants for energy issues are Undersecretary for Energy, Economic and Agricultural Affairs Rueben Jeffrey (bio) who was sworn in just this past June. However, given Jeffery’s rather broad portfolio and relatively recent addition; it has been Gregory Manuel (State Dept., “Condoleezza Rice’s Energy Guy,” article EnergyBiz, PDF format), Condi’s Special Advisor to the Secretary and International Energy Coordinator since 2006 that has been her “go-to guy” for energy. Interestingly, both Jeffery and Manuel have post-graduate degrees from Stanford. According to an unnamed source, “If there is going to be a ‘fourth quarter energy legacy’ coming out of State, it’ll be the Secretary’s drive and direction and these two guys’ heavy lifting that gets it done.”

*Actually, “climate change” is the new “PC” term. It’s not a wise move to commit to whether the temperatures are going up or down, or whether the reason they are changing is air-conditioned soccer mom SUV’s, livestock flatulence, or the lack of human sacrifices to the sun god until the all the evidence is in, say in 10,000 years, or so. Or perhaps, it doesn’t really matter since our planet’s biosphere goes on a “blind date” with an asteroid every few millennia.

Are rumors that our Secretary of State is a lesbian true? Is this the reason that she is so reluctant to run for the Presidency? In order to broach these subjects, the Sunday Times reporter, Tony Allen-Mills, used the fig leaf of a National Enquirer article, “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not,” to denigrate the progress, however modest, made at the Annapolis Middle East summit in his December 2nd article, “Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment.”

This article brings up some interesting points.

• Is it an insult to call someone “gay?”
• Is someone’s private sex life a legitimate campaign or political issue? Most us would answer “no,” but notice the use of the word “private.” For example, marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, so marital infidelity is both a public and private matter, especially for those in positions of public trust – as an indicator of one’s propensity to violate one’s serious commitments. (Lying under oath about such infidelities is in no way excusable using the guise that it is strictly a “private” matter.) Likewise, public solicitation of sex in public bathrooms is not part of an individual’s “private” sex life. Additionally, salacious comments made by senior leaders to subordinates, especially interns, with whom they have come into contact in the course of conducting public business, while not always necessarily criminal, are certainly inappropriate and a matter legitimate public concern. (Apologies to Messrs. Clinton, Craig and Foley.)
• Tabloid articles are becoming “trial balloons.” If a story appeals to a particular journalist, for whatever reason, the tabloid story can become the basis for an article in a more mainstream publication. Allen-Mills described the motivation for such practices as a way for so-called mainstream publications to spice-up their content and compete with the Internet and tabloids.
  

  The steady flow of salacious and often thinly sourced sex-related stories is causing headaches for US newspaper editors, who have been bludgeoned by shrinking circulations and internet competition yet are still clinging to values….The drift towards internet-fuelled sensationalism was deemed to be so serious earlier this year that the Columbia Journalism Review, a bastion of US media elitism, convened a panel of top editors to consider whether the government should step in to subsidise serious newspapers…

  The reporter himself seems to have employed this “thinly sourced sex-related” strategy with the following anonymous quotations pulled from the National Enquirer article – not to mention the article’s title.

  According to the buzz among political insiders, it’s an open secret that . . . Rice is gay. The piece quoted an unnamed “in-the-know” blogger as saying that during her years as provost of Stanford University in California, Rice was “completely out as a lesbian…”

  The one fact that is used to corroborate the story is that Dr. Rice and a female friend bought a home together in 1998. Well, that’s certainly conclusive evidence! This morsel was uncovered by Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post correspondent, who is hawking his recently released book about Condi, The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy. (Do you think that he might have some small personal agenda? Or that he might just have some small, infinitesimal elements of bias?) If purchasing property with a member of the same sex is proof positive that one is homosexual, then there are a lot of us that need to become card-carrying members of Log Cabin Republicans. (website) Randy Bean, the woman with whom Dr. Rice purchased the property in question, has been interviewed in Radar magazine, in that publication’s “DC Confidential” column.

  “Condi and I have been friends for 25 years,” she told us. “We co-own an investment property in Palo Alto. We do not share a home. Bean, who now works for Stanford University, told Kessler on his radio show that she was buried in medical bills, and Rice helped her buy the home along with another acquaintance, Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor who is openly gay.

Unless someone makes their sexuality a public issue by personal choice or public misconduct, then it should remain private. Once private sexuality becomes “fair game” for politics, we are in danger of having political discourse in our nation truly degenerate. Do we really want to have candidates for high offices asked about their private sex lives? For example, how many aging male politicians would like to discuss the intimate details of their treatment for prostate cancer and how it has affected their private sex life? Spouses and ex-spouses will asked about the use of sex toys, whether they’re multi-orgasmic, etc. It wouldn’t be long until Jerry Springer would be moderating presidential debates as accusations and innuendoes fly. Do we really want this?

The tabloid press does uncover important news items from time to time. Then again, a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Does anyone remember this Globe cover? (Or our blog post?) So which is it? Is Dr. Rice a lesbian, or a home-wrecking seductress? (We can already see where this is heading! We predict that the next time you see Condi on the cover a tabloid that she’ll be bisexual!) Enough is enough. Mainstream outlets should exercise extreme caution when citing the tabloids, lest they seek to join their titillating colleagues in the checkout line.

The American Left and our terrorist enemies are setting themselves up for a big “I told you so” regarding the Annapolis Middle East Conference that officially starts tomorrow.  (Unofficially, it has already begun.  EuroNews article and video; AFP, “Rice in diplomatic flurry ahead of Mideast peace talks”)

In contrast to Secretary of State Rice’s “failure is not an option” statement regarding the objectives of the conference, expectations for success have been, generally, characterized as modest or even low.  (Baltimore Sun, “Failure is not an option.” by David Wood)  True, how much can be accomplished in a single day?  But as has been widely reported, the conference has been “front loaded” with “pre-negotiations” including visits by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to the White House. 

Just the fact that the Saudis and the Syrians are going to be present is an accomplishment in itself and may lower the threshold to their participation in the future. 

Ninety percent of success is just showing up. 
Woody Allen 

Of course, the Syrians and the Saudis have both downplayed their participation and the chances for success in their domestic (state controlled) media outlets — not wanting to appear overly friendly with Washington or Israel.  In reality, both of these Arab states see the conference as a forum for their respective positions on their own “pet” issues, especially the Golan Heights for Syria, and if they score a few diplomatic points with Washington in order to hedge their bets against a future nuclear-armed Iran, so much the better.  (Alsumaria, “Assad and Ahmadinejad: Annapolis Conference to Fail”)

What is a more disturbing than the expected negativity from Iran’s Ayatollahs is reading about the politically motivated opinions of “experts” in the US media, such as the Sun article, where reporter David Wood quotes the “heavyweights” Lee Hamilton (of the quickly forgotten Iraq Surrender Study Group) and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was White House national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. (Now there’s an entry on your resume that you’d like to forget!  Instead of “heavyweights,” shouldn’t he have written ”has beens?”)  It seems that these guys are on almost the same page as Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Ayatollahs when it comes to prospects for Annapolis! 

Hamilton, along with Brzezinski and six other foreign policy heavyweights, wrote to Bush and Rice last month warning that failure at Annapolis “risks devastating consequences” in the Middle East because it would undercut moderates.  (Blog Editor: Kinda like in 2000, when President Clinton’s Camp David get together failed, right?)

Robert Little, also of the Baltimore Sun, quotes Aaron David Miller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar who doesn’t mind criticizing his own board members (Condi currently sits on the Wilson Center’s Board of Trustees) in his November 25, 2007, ominously titled article, “Rice’s legacy on the line at Annapolis conference.”

“She’s about a year or so away from being judged as a kind of inconsequential secretary of state,” said Aaron David Miller

That takes chutzpah from a guy who proudly lists himself on his Wilson Center bio as a ”Former Advisor to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli Negotiations, 1978-2003….Expertise (in) U.S.-Middle East relations; Arab-Israeli negotiations; Arab world and Palestinian politics; Israeli politics”  (Notice that does NOT include Dr. Rice’s tenure as Secretary of State)  Let’s see, how many “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli peace accords were concluded during that period?  ZERO.  Maybe without his advice, Condi will do better than her predecessors.  She certainly would be in a better position with some bipartisan support, but no such luck.  Also, Mr. Little neglected to mention in his article that Miller has a book coming out next year, America and the Much Too Promised Land: The Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.  It would be disastrous for his book sales if peace just started breaking out all over the Middle East.  Further evidence that his opinions, to which he is fully entitled to have and communicate, may be weighted down with ideological baggage was a June 19, 2007, Washington Post op-ed that he co-authored with Robert Malley: “West Bank First: It won’t work.”  (Blog Editor: We don’t mean to imply that Dr. Miller’s writings are economically influenced, but we do find these facts about his point-of-view interesting and wish that they would have been mentioned in the Sun article.  Some aspects of his work are quite beneficial to the cause of peace, such as his work with Seeds of Peace.)

Achieving any progress towards Middle East peace in one day is difficult enough no matter how much diplomatic preparation has been undertaken.  Partisan reporting and criticism only make peace that much more “elusive” (to use Miller’s book title), but that’s exactly the point.  The undermining of peace efforts in order to gain political or personal advantage for 2008, and beyond, is just another obstacle that our Secretary of State, unfortunately, must overcome.

It saddens many of us to see attacks on Secretary of State Rice’s Middle East peace efforts. That is her job — in case anyone has forgotten. By definition, the SoS is supposed to provide diplomatic options to the Chief Executive and then facilitate, foster, even nurture the domestic and foreign support that is typically essential to the success of foreign policy.  (blog posts at Powerline & Daled Amos)

The 24-hour news cycle has aired any number of pundits that, until recently, were mostly Democratic Party shills that do not want to see the Bush Administration accomplish anything during their last two years in office — lest it be used to demonstrate the superiority of Republican Party ideology. In essence, they’d rather have potentially resolvable conflicts (and other issues across the political spectrum) be left as “works in progress” for Wonder Woman Hillary’s administration to come in and “save the day.” This will then become the grist for the mill that will feed into Hillary’s “constant campaign” strategy ushering in 8-years (or more) of Democratic “dark ages.”

Diplomacy involves finesse. It’s typically not just a “this is our position, take it or leave it.” proposition. (Although, there are times that this tactic would be appropriate.) As successful business leaders (and poker players) will tell you, your outcomes are better if you wisely employ negotiation strategies. This is something that is being lost on conservatives who have started to attack Condi. The criticism from both Left and Right about ongoing Middle East peace efforts implies that Condi is blinded by the desire to reach a deal — any deal — just so that she, as a key player in the Bush Administration, leaves a “legacy” for the history books. Does anybody seriously believe; other than Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink, etc.; that Dr. Rice would “give away the farm” just to strike a deal that put her ego over our national interest?

Also, diplomacy is as important for what it does not accomplish — although it doesn’t make for great headlines or photo-ops. When a diplomatic solution is not reached, this is often a necessary first-step in enlisting the help of allies and neutralizing potential adversaries in non-diplomatic solutions. Remember England’s help in Iraq, for example?

Our Secretary of State deserves our support as she pursues the peaceful resolution of conflict around the globe. And keep in mind that “successful” negotiations frequently are successful for when they do not reach an agreement. The appearance of critics from within her own party and among our allies only weakens her negotiating position as she tries to do her job. 

Yes, fellow Condistas, it’s true. Yesterday in Harlem, as widely reported, Condi again downplayed, without outright rejecting, in a General Tecumseh Sherman sort of way, the idea of a presidency in her future.

At a joint appearance with Representative Charles Rangel at Public School No. 154, the Harriet Tubman Learning Center, the subject of President Condoleezza Rice was initially broached by the Democrat! (From Reuters’ article by Arshad Mohammed, “Rice questioned about her sleep, fears and dreams” )

Rangel…teasingly suggested Rice aim for the White House.

“The Republican ranks for president are still open,” he told students. “We might be able to make some news this morning.”

“Charlie, don’t start,” Rice said.

Jennifer Medina of the NY Times “City Desk” in her article, “An Odd Couple Tours a Harlem School,” quoted the following exchange between Condi and the Congressman. (see below*)

Will you run for president?” one student asked.

Ms. Rice responded with a bit of an embarrassed laugh and a direct answer: “I don’t think I’m the kind of person who would run for president.”

Mr. Rangel grabbed the microphone and exclaimed, “You missed your chance to make big news today!”

We’ll parse these words soon in an upcoming blog post — at the risk of sounding like a Clinton under oath!

*He’s Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee — and a fellow with whom Dr. Rice might like to be on friendly terms in the future. After all, she very well could face the prospect of a Democratic House in another Republican administration. (Hers, or someone else’s!) Could this be her way of setting the stage for bipartisanship — just in case she’s coaxed onto the Republican ticket? Of course Charles isn’t an uninterested party here, either. There’s been speculation that he hasn’t always appreciated the Clinton Machine (a.k.a.”The Arkansas Carpetbaggers”) setting up shop in his state as their tactics have become more heavy handed. Having a few Republican votes available to him in the future might allow him to resist Hillary’s efforts to dominate Empire State politics and give him a stronger negotiating position in legislative wrangling — making him and his committee more than just a rubber stamp for Hillary’s policy wonks. And make no mistake, Representative Rangel wants to be “a player” and not a puppet.

Please note: As far as we are aware, there’s no underlying racial implication to the expression, “The Black Swan.” Rather, it is the title of Nissam Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, released in April, 2007. With a penchant for citing philosophers and writers that (with luck) most of us haven’t heard about since freshman Philosophy 101 and Western Civilization 101, the book describes how we all handle, or mishandle in many cases, situations that involve the highly improbable, or what the writer terms “black swans.”

Taleb is a Wall Street refugee who is reinventing himself as an author and philosopher.  How well has he done that?  That’s up to the individual reader, and we suspect, how closely one feels that his treatise confirms, or refutes, their own ideas.

So, how does this impact Condi? In a variety of ways, but the most direct application is 9-11, which he uses as an example of a “black swan” phenomenon.   (NYT Op-ed, from Fooled by Randomness blog)  If Taleb’s theory gains widespread acceptance, there are negative political implications for those, mostly Democrats, who are trying to assign blame for the attack in order to gain political advantage. A key part of their strategy for 2008 will be to try and attach President Bush’s lower approval ratings, fueled by the non-stop 9-11 and War on Terror-related liberal media attacks that pass for journalism these days, to any prominent Republican – Condi included. She is especially vulnerable to being targeted due to her high profile in the current administration and reputation for a “Teflon” coating that keeps her approval ratings considerably above those of many of her colleagues.

However, Condi herself is a “black swan.” Her personal history of growing up in segregated Alabama, seeking higher education, teaching, administering, and a life of public service is itself a highly improbable career trajectory. But when coupled with her ability to ascend to the Presidency one day, her status as a “black swan” is a certainty.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book is available at Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and in downloadable audio at Audible.com

Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post published M. J. Rosenberg’s (Director of the Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center) op-ed Condi gets it right. (link) Predictably, there will be hard-liners, Israeli and Palestinian, that will reject the author’s thesis.  More than likely, they’ll simultaneously accuse Secretary of State Rice of being a shill for the other side. (Not even John Kerry could “flip-flop” fast enough to accomplish that feat!)

Rice’s position is precisely right. America should not boycott Palestinians who recognize Israel and oppose terrorism just because they serve in a government with people who don’t.

Dr. Rice’s recent accomplishments in the Middle East, however modest and subject to being impeded, or even derailed, by the winds of domestic and regional politics in the US, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the EU, Russia and, of course, the UN — not to mention the possibility of terrorism at any moment by any of a myriad of “splinter” groups; are on the threshold of breaking the “glass ceiling” of Middle East peace. Rosenberg asserts that the progress made by Condi’s ongoing efforts has set the stage for the equivalent of a Palestinian-Israeli Shanghai Communique.

The original, the joint statement that concluded President Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to Communist China, was short on substance, but nonetheless, arguably, marked the beginning of one of the most important geopolitical shifts of the last century and hastened the end of the Cold War.

Not much happened during the visit.. ..pictures of a US president in Beijing, shaking hands with Chairman Mao and visiting the Great Wall, were more significant than any agreement reached.. ..In fact, it was near-impossible to reach any agreement because the two sides agreed on virtually nothing.

Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, and Mao’s foreign minister, Chou En-Lai, drafted the so-called Shanghai communique which stated that the two sides had met, held “frank and honest” discussions, and hoped to meet again. Unable to state areas of agreement, the communique stated areas of disagreement.. ..Nevertheless, the joint statement changed the world by asserting that despite the differences, the process of reconciliation had begun.

Time will tell if this analogy is correct, but there is cause for cautious optimism if these recent reports are any indication: Time, “Condi Diary: Pushing Peace in the Desert,” Haaretz, “Olmert agrees to resume open-ended talks with Abbas,” Jerusalem Post, Rice: Abbas, Olmert to meet biweekly on ‘political horizon’,” Al-Jazeerah, “Condi’s Delicate Condition, but Hope is on the Horizon”

The admonition to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” is as timeless now, as it ever was.

The Democratically-controlled House succeeded in doing what Speaker Pelosi said it would.  In “voting to end the war” (It would seem by any means necessary, even surrender, or worse, “starving” our troops in the field for critical funding.), she is trying to accomplish what, up until now, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and all the Islamic terrorists combined have been unable to do —  force a retreat (euphemistically called “redeployment”) by US forces in the War on Terror.  And all she had to do was bang her Speaker’s gavel to have almost all of the Democratic congressmen (and congresswomen) line up like pigs at the feeding trough as she poured out a mere $642 million dollars of taxpayer cash in order to get them to forget about our troops.  These are pigs that even an Ayatollah could love.

In spite of the mainstream media in full spin mode, the American public will see this for what it is — a betrayal of our military men and women, their families, and ultimately the entire country.  This vote and the pork barrel spending required to make it happen are going to “fatten up” these Congressional “piggies” for electoral slaughter in 2008.  So, in recognition of your legislative “victory,” Nancy, here’s a “Mission Accomplished” banner just for you!

If you want to use this image on your website, or blog, feel free to do so.  (Although, we would appreciate a link back to us.)  Just be sure to copy and save the image to your own server in order to protect our website’s bandwidth.

US News and World Report’s (USNWR) Washington Whispers, edited by Paul Bedard, has, from time to time, provided tantilizing hints of happenings inside the beltway, and most interesting to us, glimpses into Dr. Rice and her “inner circle.”  His most direct mention of Condi 2008 in Whispers, prior to his column this weekend, was May 30, 2005.  (link)

Rice Wants It–But in Draft Form
Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they’re pushing her name out there. “She definitely wants to be president,” said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn’t planning on quitting to run. “She wants to be drafted,” he said.

At the time, this was an exciting development and many Condistas spent countless hours speculating as to who Bedard’s source might have been.  However, his reporting on this occasion is not quite as encouraging, being entitled Maybe Someone Should Ask Condi and he goes on to quote Tom Holt, of ThinkCondi.net, in a somewhat mocking manner –  just as the BBC reporter, Richard Allen Greene, couldn’t help but make the following observation about CPAC 2007, earlier this month.

Even Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state who has never even hinted that she might run for president next year, has a lone enthusiast hopefully bearing a red balloon saying “Condi ‘08″.

FYI, we didn’t attend CPAC, as a group, this year for a reason — it finally dawned on us that it is the Republican Party that nominates presidential candidates — and while it is always great fun to go “rub elbows” with those who share common ideological ground, we have to target our very limited resources in a very focused manner.   (There were, however, some very dedicated Condistas — from a variety of groups — that attended CPAC at their own expense to keep the message in the public eye.  Our hat’s off to them.)  The BBC’s Mr. Greene betrays his political perspective by his mischaracterization of a “lone enthusiast.”  He obviously didn’t spend much time at CPAC with the National Black Republican Association (www.NBRA.info).  The individual Condistas that attended CPAC were inundated with requests for more Condista materials.  It was a tactical decision, perhaps even a blunder, to decide not to try and compete with the well-financed machines that Mitt, Rudy, and others were fielding at CPAC this year, but there is a “method to our madness.”  (More on that later.)

By the way, Mr. Greene did go on to make the observation: “That puts Ms. Rice at least one supporter ahead of the man who announced on Wednesday that he is running for president - Senator John McCain of Arizona.”  McCain, whose support in the polls has always mystified us, because we have NEVER been able to find McCain supporters at any of a number of conservative and Republican events.  (As opposed to the many anti-McCain activists.)  The Arizona Senator’s supporters are like the aliens that crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico.  A majority of Americans (surprisingly) believe that they exist, but no concrete evidence that they are real has ever been uncovered.  Of course, considering the number of dead people that voted for Democrats in recent elections, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.  (Just kidding, well, uh, sort of.)

Getting back to Paul Bedard at USNWR, we have, since our inception, looked to the ONLY successful presidential “draft” of the twentieth century, that of President Eisenhower as a model of how to “draft” Condi.  If one carefully studies history, they will discover that the war hero and NATO Commander (at the time), was quite reticent to accept a nomination by any party.  See our post of March 25, 2006.  (Hat tip to Josiah Schmidt for the original research.)  However, unlike the “Draft Eisenhower” movement, we are not the political heavyweights with “deep pockets” that ultimately convinced “Ike” to run.  (Draft Eisenhower)  Every Condista across the country is going to be working, each with their own individual talents, to line up the support that will be necessary to pull off what will be only be the third Republican “draft” in the past century — Eisenhower and Goldwater were the first and second, respectively.  Compared to those who drafted Ike, we’ve got a long way to go.  So, it is too early — for us — to ”ask” Condi.  (Although it almost appears to be a ritual with Sean Hannity everytime she appears on his radio show.   Of course, it can’t be such an awful question that she doesn’t keep returning for return engagements, right?)  Paul, one day it will be the right time to ask — and we’ll be here, along with many others.  Meanwhile, Secretary Rice’s efforts towards peace in the Middle East, coordination of diplomatic and military efforts around the globe, etc. are keeping her “dance card” pretty full right now.  Distracting her with any concern of an election at this time would politicize everything she is doing.  However, will she ultimately make that decision?  For that, we’ll quote, yet again, Mark Goldblatt of the American Spectator:

“…she’s said that she has no plans to run, that she won’t run, that her real ambition is to become commissioner of the National Football League. But I believe Rice is first and foremost a patriot, and if a case were put forward that campaigning for president were an act of service to her country, rather than service to her ego, she might reconsider.”

Regardless of your political philosophy, party affiliation, psychosocial milieu, etc. there is one core principal upon which the vast majority of Americans can agree: The US Presidency is not, or at least should not, be “for sale.”

Oh, for sure, many of us constantly complain that “it’s all about the money.”  We see presidential hopefuls spend endless hours pursuing campaign cash and reporting “the take” to the media (and the FEC and IRS) as a way of “keeping score.”  But at the end of the day, whether you’re a Communist, a Klansman, a Democrat, a Libertarian, or a Republican; everyone’s participation in the presidential political process every four years confirms that, at some level, we all, for the most part, believe that the US Presidency is “up for grabs” and not “for sale.”  While cash is important, there is still the underlying belief that issues and ideology play, at least, some role in selecting our next chief executive.  Otherwise, why bother participating in the process at all?

The authors of Freakonomics are practitioners of the “dismal science,” a.k.a “economics.”  While their conclusions have certainly come under very close scrutiny and criticism, from the Left and the Right on a variety of issues (most notably abortion and its relationship to crime), these authors provide a unique perspective on the world around us.  While we don’t agree with all of the conclusions, or lines of reasoning, promoted by Freakonomics, there is one of their observations about campaign spending and the outcome of elections that caught our interest.

In our travels around the nation to a variety of political gatherings, we have been the target of those critics who seem to take great joy in pointing out that Dr. Rice isn’t a “serious candidate” because she hasn’t “joined the $100 million dollar club” or reached some other arbitrary benchmark of campaign finance.  Perhaps, these individuals are just trying to relieve their own insecurities about their “candidate of the day.”  Does anybody remember the presidential aspirations of the former Senator George Allen?

We provide the following audio excerpt from Freakonomics as an antidote to these “disciples of dollars.”  (Click here to listen to the Windows Media audio file.)  In the Information Age with more of us getting our political news from so-called alternative media, we believe that there are millions of Americans who are still able to make, and will make, the decision about who will be their next Commander in Chief based upon the candidate, their record of achievement, their judgment, and who is most in agreement with their positions on a broad range of issues. 

So, to answer our own rhetorical question: “No, the Presidency isn’t for sale.”   Of course, cash can determine the style in which a candidate travels on their own “Road to the White House,” but whether she arrives at Pennsylvania Avenue in a Gulfstream V, or a repainted campaign bus - the point is that she “has arrived.”

So, the next time you hear, “Condi can’t be our next President.  She doesn’t have (fill in the blank) millions of dollars.”  Refer them to this audio excerpt of Freakonomics.  (audio)

(Freakonomics is available in a variety of formats: Hardcover: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, Audio CD: Amazon, Books-a-Million; Large Print: Amazon, Barnes & Noble; Español, Spanish-language paperback: Books-a-Million; downloadable audio at Audible.com)

Negative campaigning is just a fact of life these days on the American political landscape.  Once a political figure starts being viewed as a potential candidate, it is almost a certainty that the attacks and mudslinging will follow.  Take this CBS News graphic, for example.  Newt isn’t even declared and he’s included in negative mainstream media coverage!

When Condi becomes a candidate will she be able to become the next Teflon President?  (Reagan was the first.)  See our homepage post on Anita Kumar’s St. Petersburg Times article.

What are the most likely areas that the jackals of the liberal media machine will focus on?  How can we best prepare for the negative attacks — because you know it’s coming.

In an interesting bit of speculation — albeit from the Left — Democrats.com in a post by Bob Fertik wrote yesterday that the motivation behind John Negroponte’s move to State was to lay the foundation for Condi to resign as Secretary of State and start her 2008 campaign.  Intriguing, but we’d hardly characterize such a move as a “Hail Mary” pass as did Fertik.  Furthermore, Dr. Rice is an accomplished football strategist — thanks to her father, the coach — and we doubt that she’d call a play to “throw the long bomb” when it’s “first and ten.”  Then again, the best time to pass is when your opponent least expects it.

That’s the big news, in my opinion, coming out of the last couple of months.  Bill Frist has announced he will not run for President in 2008.  He was a serious contender, to me, and I was constantly monitoring him in the news.  Senator Frist was the Senate majority leader who was also a doctor. 

   Speculation was rampant about his aspirations when he created VOLPAC, a PAC “Working to Elect Republican Candidates Throughout the Nation”.  He also made a great showing at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in 2006, with a little help from Tennessee natives.   (If only Condi had been listed in the poll,  grr…)

     Bill Frist was an honorable gentleman and respected statesman .  He may have been a little too nice for politics, as he would readily admit. 

    What does this mean for Condi??  The major GOP field is narrowed to four candidates:  McCain , Giuliani, Romney, and Condi!!! 

   I hate to sound mean spirited, especially in a post about Frist, but…

One  Down ….  Three to go!!!

Yesterday, Glenn Kessler in his Washington Post article, entitled “Rice’s pre-election appearances buck tradition — Secretary of State is expected to stay above the partisan fray,” reported on Condi’s pre-election activity with a rather critical tone. While Dr. Rice has largely avoided the megabuck politcal fundraising circuit with its infamous “rubber chicken” and photo ops (typically available for an additional donation), she has, as Kessler points out, been on talk radio quite a bit.

There are two reasons why Dr. Rice has taken on a higher profile than previous Secretaries of State. First, in these midterm elections, the War on Terror, foreign policy issues and Iraq have taken on dominent roles. So, in order to counter the Democrats’ disinformation campaign and to bypass their stooges in the mainstream media, Condi is speaking directly to the American people via talk radio. (Mark your TV Guide, program your TIVO; she’ll be making an election eve appearance Monday with Fox’s Neil Cavuto.) She’s becoming our nation’s “current events” teacher clearly explaining US foreign policy. Hopefully, this will be successful against the Democrats’ “stealth strategy” to hide shrill, ultra-left leaders like Pelosi and Reid right before the election while roling out Dems perceived as more “moderate” like Wesley Clark — who thinks the stars on his former uniform will blind Americans to the fact that Democratic anti-terror “redeployment” plans are just an eloquent way to surrender.

Second, even if she isn’t aware of it herself, recent past Secretaries of State (Thank God!) didn’t have a “date with destiny” to be our nation’s next commander in chief.

Ben Cardin, the Democrats’ $4 million man (and that’s just the primary)

In an example of Party discipline that would have made Stalin’s commissars proud, the Maryland Democratic machine recruited and nominated Congressman Ben Cardin to defeat Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and past president of the NAACP, who - in the opinion of many political pundits - would have been a stronger candidate. Cardin and the party spent almost $4 million in order to deliver a very public “political payback” to Mfume. Moreover, during the primary, before Lt. Governor Steele locked up the Republican nomination, there were rumored to have been “more than a few” Maryland Democrats who felt that a white nominee would be the smart move since the “black vote was in the bag” no matter who their Democratic nominee was. (Another fine example of overpaid, political hacks being wrong, yet again - as evidenced by Steele’s growing support across racial and political lines.) In anticipation of potentially controlling the House or Senate with razor thin margins after the 2006 election, the Democratic leadership feels that strict Party discipline is paramount — so much so that it may end up costing them control of the Senate. What did Kweisi, a Democratic leader for years, do to provoke the wrath of the Democratic Party power structure?

In Maryland, he’s the Republicans’ “Man of Steele”

(Washington Times)

Beltway rumor has it that Mfume’s fall from grace from the Democratic Party of Howard Dean and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of whom are enthusiastic fundraisers for “their man” Cardin, began with his outreach to (gasp) Republicans while NAACP President. This was viewed as a threat to the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote and a dangerous signal that rabid partisanship was no longer a prerequisite to rising in the Party hierarchy for black Democrats. Kweisi has been quoted, “Not every Democrat is your friend and not every Republican is your enemy.” This is heresy in the Democratic Party.

Kweisi Mfume: betrayed by the Democratic Party after a lifetime of work

The “nail in the coffin” for Mfume’s future as a Democrat was his 2003 decision to nominate Dr. Condoleezza Rice for the NAACP President’s Image Award. How dare he praise Dr. Rice on national television? In retaliation, Julian Bond, NAACP chairman nominated Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder, who would later call Dr. Rice a “murderer” for her role in Iraq.

(more…)

What are the correct terms for homosexual couples and their family members? Somebody tell us. I, and perhaps you, have struggled with this one for a long time. I am so behind the times that I still struggle with how to refer to unmarried heterosexual couples, much less gay ones. (See side bar) In an example of “political hyperactivity” bordering on a publicity stunt designed to whip their supporters into a check-writing frenzy for the 2006 elections, the Family Research Council, a stalwart of the the Conservative movement with whom I agree on most, but certainly not all, issues is bashing Condi for her part in a swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador Mark R. Dybul, the United States Global AIDS Coordinator. He’s an openly homosexual physician with impeccable credentials. The FRC objects to Secretary Rice publicly referring to Dybul’s “life partner” and his life partner’s mother as his “mother-in-law.” FRC Vice President Peter Sprigg has called this “profoundly offensive. (I didn’t want to quote Sprigg “out of context” and looked for the quotation on the FRC website and could not find it there — strange. It is taken from an Agape Press article, a source I believe to be reliable.) More incredibly, he continues with the following tirade:

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.” (Does Sprigg think that Dr. Dybul is going to use his position to arrange sexual rendezvous with other homosexuals? He’s not a congressman!) “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.” (”Deferential treatment?” Is this guy joking? What was Secretary Rice supposed to do? Was she supposed to say, with the First Lady present, “Today we’re happy to see Dr. Dybul’s live-in sodomy partner here, and seated next to him is the mother who permitted her son to take up a life of sexual perversion.” Nothing short of stoning the gay couple after the hors d’oeuvres would have satisfied Sprigg.)

If that’s not enough, the FRC’s Tony Perkins is quoted rhetorically asking, “Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?” Oh yes, there’s this entire network of gay Republicans and their staffers torpedoing the GOP agenda — that’s a “vast right wing conspiracy” that even Hillary couldn’t imagine. Switch to decaf, guys.

For the record, post author opposes gay marriage. For Condi’s last comment on the gay marriage issue, made at the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, click here.

Ann Althouse, USA Today

The confrontation between the Clintons and Condi that erupted after Bill’s interview with Chris Wallace on September 24^th was (is?) based on the claim, by Clinton, that he left behind a “comprehensive plan” on counter terrorism for the Bush administration when he left office. In making his point he relied heavily on Richard Clarke, author of Against All Enemies. (Amazon) Watch our video highlights of this controversy (link, click on the “play” button to start), then read the transcript of this “background briefing” given by Clarke to a group of reporters, including Fox’s Jim Angle. (We’re trying to see if there are any recordings, audio or video, of this briefing.) Could this be the “smoking gun” that clearly demonstrates who’s telling the truth?

Clinton: “I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the world, Dick Clark, who got demoted.”

Clarke (August 2002): “I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

Rice: “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton Administration did in the preceding eight years.”
“We were not left with a comprehensive strategy to fight Al-Qaeda.”

Actually, Condi was being modest when she said that she and the Bush Administration were “at least as aggressive.” Under her guidance, the counter terrorism budget was quintupled, and the plans for implementing a much more aggressive counter terrorism effort were already underway when 9-11 occurred. This was the result of Bush’s order to “stop swatting flies.” Remember, many of the Clinton-era impediments were still in place, such as barriers to intelligence sharing between the CIA and FBI, and these had to be overcome, as well. Also, with this more aggressive attitude, and although it’s a moot point now, can anyone imagine that Bush and Condi would’ve refused to “pull the trigger” on UBL, on multiple occasions, as Michael Scheuer, PhD, contends the Clinton administration did? (Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and now a CBS News analyst. He’s the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, make sure you read the updated 2005, revised edition, of the later book. It contains a lot of new information.)

(more…)

Hezbollah anti-Condi banner

It is disturbing to see criticism of Dr. Rice in the conservative blogosphere after her recent keynote address to the American Task Force on Palestine gala in Washington, DC, October 11, 2006. The dinner was held to honor a Republican Arab-American, (Blog editor’s note: Please accept our appologies for using a “hyphenated American” reference, but in this context I felt it was appropriate for Barbara to use it — in spite of Condi’s past criticisms of the practice.) John H. Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire (1983-1989) and White House Chief of Staff for George H. W. Bush (1989-1991). (Do not confuse former Governor Sununu with his son, a Republican Senator from New Hampshire, John E. Sununu.) How quickly forgotten is Condi’s support for Israel during the recent Southern Lebanon invasion. For this, she was “demonized” by Hezbollah,

(more…)

For those of us that are “Fox Fans,” we are used to the informal banter that goes on during Fox and Friends in the morning. Today, in a segue to the Sandy Berger investigation story, the morning crew began doing impersonations of the former Clinton official. During the segment, Condi — and her now famous boots were brought up, as well. (CNN, Fox)

Although the Sandy Berger matter is very serious, especially with the new controversy about whether the Clinton, or Bush, administration did more to combat Al Qaeda (questions that may never be completely answered since Berger destroyed some documents); it is fun to look at the news from a lighter perspective from time to time. Click here to view some of the out takes.

The results of a recent Marist poll seem to reflect the rejection of John McCain’s maverick image as he has broken with the administration over detainee treatment and other issues, in spite of the compromises that eventually settled the disputes. The top three Republican candidates are still Rudy (22%), Condi (20%) and McCain (15%), but the trends and relative numbers reveal more than just “who won.” (Angus-Reid)

First, Rudy and McCain, although they haven’t officially announced, are clearly “on the circuit” in early primary states. Condi is the only one of the trio discouraging rumors of her candidacy, yet her support remains solid as she has taken center stage in the political battles that are leading up to the 2008 election. Naysayers about her ability to withstand the rigors of a campaign are starting to take note as she has gone mano a mano with both Clintons in the past several weeks. Of course, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, this is exactly what she’ll be faced with up until Election Day.

Second, the drop in McCain’s numbers is starting to confirm what we’ve been seeing and hearing for the past two years but not reflected in the polls — that McCain’s “loose canon” and “maverick” image are not appreciated in the Republican Party regardless of his strong general election numbers and fund raising abilities. Even so, many of us at still confused by the incongruity of poll results that keep McCain in the top 3 and widespread negative reactions to McCain at Republican gatherings.

Third, even with Rudy’s strong showing this early in the election cycle, his liberal positions make his nomination doubtful. If he did run, a destructive challenge from the right would surely occur. That, followed with the Clinton Attack machine, could take a lot of the electoral luster off of “America’s mayor.”

Lastly, although we’re biased, we think that this poll bodes very well for Condi 2008.