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. 

Much has been made of the Cheney-Rice “split” within the administration over the Israeli attack on Syria and how Secretary Rice held back the Israelis until they just couldn’t wait any longer — as if this is some type of astonishing revelation.  (MSNBC, Sunday Times, Jersalem Post, Al-Ahram, NY Times, Internat’l Herald Tribune, ) By definition, the Secretary of State is the chief diplomat of the nation.  So naturally she has more “invested” in diplomatic solutions.  What’s interesting, if the recent reports are to be given any creedence, is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — who, by a priori reasoning, would have more invested in military options — is on Condi’s “side.”

 What doesn’t follow is that after being criticized for a lack of aggressive diplomacy, by “Monday morning quarterbacks” ranging from Nancy Pelosi to Newt Gingrich, is that anyone would be surprised that Dr. Rice is doing just that — actively pursuing diplomatic solutions.  You can’t make some people happy — especially when they’re pursuing their own political agendas, whether on the right or the left.

Other concerns may be figuring into the SoS’s diplomatic and political calculus. 

1. She doesn’t want to repeat Secretary of State Colin Powell’s experience (Remember his UN WMD presentation?) of making a very public pitch for administration policy only to have poor intelligence damage her credibility at home and around the world.  So, of course, she would press the Israeli’s for “rock solid” intelligence, which apparently they obtained, before “signing off” on anything.
2. Diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and Asia would come to a screeching halt if our chief diplomat were viewed as a proponent of the “Sick’em, Israel” policy.  Who let the Dogs out? doesn’t translate well into Chinese, Arabic, or Russian.
3. Whether intentional or not, the “Good Cop — Bad Cop” negotiating technique is in play.  Secretary Rice can honestly say to whomever she is speaking, “Look, you earnestly need to negotiate with me now, because Lord knows what they’re cooking up while I’m out of town.  And if I go back ‘empty handed’ who knows what could happen…”  Since the Left and the Democratic Congress have taken the “Big Stick” out of Condi’s hands, “speaking softly” isn’t as effective as it used to be.

Until Fred Thompson became a candidate with his declaration on the Leno Show, conservatives - for the most part - didn’t have a “first-tier” candidate in the Republican primary that really got them excited about the upcoming 2008 Presidential race in spite of the general recognition that a 2008 Democratic victory would be a tragedy for nation.  (Fred ‘08 website)

Unfortunately, it takes an actual candidate to win an election.  In the US we are only allowed to vote “for” a candidate and not “against,”  “anybody but Hillary,” or “none of the above.”

Rudy and Mitt, for many on the Right, are “compromise candidates.”  It isn’t that Rudy and Mitt are disliked on the Right.  On the contrary, they enjoy wide respect for being “Yankee Republicans” that have managed to get elected in the nearly “solid blue” Northeast.  That said, they are not viewed (by many in the GOP) as “brethren” in a struggle that predates the “Reagan Revolution.”  Furthermore, their recent conciliatory moves to the Right are viewed more as expedient political maneuvers, rather true “conversions” to the conservative point of view.

The lack of a candidate that “connected” with the so-called “Republican base” allowed Fred to remain the “stealth” candidate for months.  He has had the luxury of seeming very “presidential” by avoiding the primary race’s “squabbles.”  In the absence of definitively stated policy positions - made necessary during the “typical” primary process - the former senator continues to make the most of his Law and Order television persona, Arthur Branch, a southern conservative turned Big Apple prosecutor.  (Shouldn’t that story line have premiered on the SciFi Channel first?)  As such, he has been portrayed week, after week, season, after season, as the wise, all-knowing, “down home” and folksy older (but not elderly) boss that explains to his urban, mostly liberal staff, the conservative positions of the day using rural southern anecdotes that are conveniently, debated, and poignantly resolved in the 60-minute prime time episodes of Law and Order.  We doubt that NBC ever imagined that they were creating a conservative icon when the created Thompson’s character.

But there is a cloud on Thompson’s horizon - politically and personally.  Could a page from the Democratic history book, Paul Tsongas’ presidential campaign of 1992, be repeated?  (NY Sun, “Thompson’s Cancer Stirs Memories of Tsongas” and National Review, “The Tsongas Problem”)  Paul was Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party primary rival who made the contest a real “horse race,” until he suddenly dropped out.   Like Tsongas, Thompson returned to politics to run for President after a stint in the Senate.  Also like Tsongas, when he entered the race, relatively positive prognoses were stated by the candidate, his staff, and a variety of “experts.”   What’s not known is whether the parallels between Thompson and Tsongas include the deceptions (or the gentler description “lack of clarity” used by Tsongas) made by the 1992 Tsongas campaign regarding his recurrence of cancer and his prognosis.  (Red State, Fred Thompson’s Statement, “What you need to know — Facts about my cancer”

Nobody on his deathbed ever said, “I wish I had spent more time at the office.”   Paul Tsongas   Could Fred have shared this sentiment with Paul and then have left the Senate for an acting career?

Interestingly, Paul Tsongas died January 18, 1997, in what would have been the final days of his administration had he won the 1992 election.  (If this would have happened in the Clinton administration, think of how many pardons he never could have sold, er… granted.)  Does anybody doubt that Tsongas’ ability to govern effectively would have been affected during the final months of his administration as he was dying?  Could the same thing happen to Thompson?  Granted, the statistics on survival of patients diagnosed with Thompson’s relatively rare form of lymphoma are encouraging, but what about patients’ subjected high levels of stress - you know, like serving as President of the United States?  That’s where the theory of Fred’s “Magic Carpet” comes in to play.  (Jeremy D. Mayer at Politico.com, “Is Death on the Ballot in 2008?”)

The closer Fred Thompson gets to the nomination, the greater attention will be paid to his VP choice — especially in light of the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll just released (Rudy 30%, Fred 23%, McCain 15%, Romney 10%, Huckabee 4%).  This is the so called “magic carpet track” into the Oval Office, the Vice-Presidency on a ticket with a partner that has a fair chance of not completing their term in office.  At anytime, a future President Thompson (or Giuliani, a cancer survivor himself) could declare that he is unable to carry out his duties and elevate the VP to the Presidency.  Is this a likely scenario?  We think so.

Another issue for the Thompson campaign is his “gender gap.”  In the WSJ/NBC poll, he only had a little more than half the support among Republican women, 16%, than he showed among Republican men, 29%.  This gap is made even more urgent by Rudy’s strong support among female Republicans in the same poll (25% male, 35% female).  If Fred is the eventual nominee and doesn’t take decisive action, we suspect that this gender gap would grow larger during the general election.  Although a female VP choice is a possibility for either candidate, this makes us think that Thompson would be more likely to choose a female VP than Rudy.  For Fred, it is absolutely essential that he improve his support among women for the primary and the general election.  Is Condi on Fred’s “short list?”   Or someone else’s?  Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?  (Interesting Trivia: Both Condi and Fred are native Alabamans.)

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)

     In the latest Zogby poll,  Condoleezza Rice finished foutrth behind the McCain Romney, and Giuliani.   This is great considering she hasn’t declared.  The big news, though,  is in the same poll,  she finishes third among self-identified “conservative Republicans”, behind  Romney and Gingrich.

     Why is the conservative Republican poll important?   The conservatives are still looking for a candidate they can rally behind.  A liberal GOP candidate will not energize the conservative vote, even if he runs against Hillary Clinton. Condoleezza Rice would be an excellent choice for conservatives.  She has both pro-life and pro-Second Amendment views.  She is also the only one who can continue leading the “War on terror”,  no training required.

   I think she can also serve to unite the RINOs and conservatives of the GOP.     The RINOs will enjoy making history and heading off Hillary or Obama.  Condi doesn’t have the “lightning rod” factor like other conservative candidates.   it would be more difficult for Dems to paint a caricature of Condi as a racist-sexist-homophobe conservative. The conservatives will enjoy having an experienced , principled Republican to continue protecting our country.

   Condi is a win-win for all of the GOP.

As this is being written, Fox News Sunday, for March 11, 2007, has not aired.  However, the leaks coming out of the Fox Newsroom that he’s “leaving the door open” to a possible presidential bid would make the New York Times proud.

Despite Hollywood’s traditional leftward tilt, an actor, turned politician and presidential candidate, has been a successful strategy for Republicans in the past.  Could Thompson be the Republican that stars in the remake of Bedtime for Bonzo Hillary?

 The eagerness with which the possibility of a Thompson candidacy has been greeted by Republicans — especially the more conservative ones — is an indication that the current selection of so-called “frontrunners” and “second-tier” candidates is not very satisfying to party rank and file.  The party and the primary process are basically treating us like a six year old at the dinner table: “Sure, you can have whatever you like for desert.  You can pick from brocoli, asparagus, or brussel sprouts.”   Only, unlike a six-year old, we’re expected to pick up the check and then wash the dishes without complaining.  Moreover, we’re expected to jump up and down, cheer, applaud, rally, march, throw confetti, blow up balloons, etc. all on on cue for the photo oportunities that these candidates are going to be staging all over the country in a primary system that is rigged to prevent any “unapproved” dark horse candidates (that we might actually want to support, like Condi!) from having a chance at the nomination because of the “front-loaded” February 5th Mega Tuesday election schedule.

It’s time for the “grassroots” to insist on a seat at the “grown up’s” table.  If we don’t, we’ll be eating brussel sprouts for desert for a long time to come with no one to blame but ourselves.

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.

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!!!

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

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…)

Rudy Giuliani, dubbed “America’s Mayor” by none other than French President Jacque Chirac, has consistently come out at, or near, the top of polls for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. These same polls have Senator McCain and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rounding out the top three. The rest of the pack are generally “single digit footnotes” to the poll. Until recently, the relative positions of this “triad” have changed very little. These results, in our opinion, leave Dr. Rice as the clear front runner. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But consider the recent drop in Senator McCain’s numbers in the Marist-MSNBC poll as more, and more, Republicans have become familiar with his positions as a “maverick” Republican and are suspect of his attempts to cozy up to the religious right. (This only confirms the overwhelming expressions of disapproval for McCain that we’ve seen and heard at grassroots Republican gatherings for the past two years.) And while we think Rudy is a great “New York Republican” behind whom we all rallied on 9-11, he is “fatally flawed” for the national Republican presidential nomination. Why? Just read the first paragraph of Rudy does New Hampshire, an article in PoliticsNH.com.

Rudy Giuliani - the twice-divorced supporter of abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control who has embraced Mario Cuomo and donned drag - just might have been smiling when he wrapped up his first New Hampshire swing in two years.

The basic plausibility of a Giuliani bid for the 2008 Republican nomination rests on the righteous force of his 9/11 credentials somehow driving conservative primary voters and caucus-goers - for the first time in the modern era - to subordinate their rock-ribbed social values to other considerations.

“Bill asked me to show you the subway system.” Although the polls indicate that Rudy could throw Hillary in front of New York’s, and the nation’s, political train in 2008, he’ll still have to win the nomination to be in a position to give her “a push.” See the full-size image here at About.com.

(more…)

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.

We are featured in a news story today on the ABC News website. It talks about our movement and the possibility of Condi running for President. My favorite part of the article talks about how Condi is being groomed to become a possible contender for 2008.

It’s media exposure like this that will encourage people to come to our website and learn more about our movement. Be sure to spread the word!

The Republican leadership of the House, and especially Speaker Dennis Hastert, need to seize the opportunity to resign their leadership positions NOW. Their replacements need to be thrown “into the breech” as soon as possible so that they can maximize their effectiveness prior to the midterm elections. In doing so they can dramatically illustrate the differences between Democratic and Republican leadership. It would help make the case to the American voter that Democrats make excuses for misconduct, even embrace misconduct and endorse it. (Although, this in NO way excuses Mark Foley’s, or anybody else’s, bad behavior.)

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed Gary Condit (D-CA) after his affair with an intern was exposed. (SF Chronicle)

Barney Frank (D-MA) housed a homosexual prostitute who based his pimping operation out of the Massachusetts Congressman’s DC apartment. (WaPo)

Bill Clinton pardoned former Congressman Mel “crazy about young stuff” Reynolds in the final hours of his presidency. In spite of his marriage and three children (who ended up on welfare after his conviction), Mel had trysts with an underage campaign worker. Tapes of his conversations with her, trying to arrange a ménage à trois with another underage female, helped lead to his conviction. So what type of career opportunities do you have as a convicted, but pardoned, sex offender? Goat herder in the Aleutian Islands? No, how about a job with Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH? And thanks to his pardon, he doesn’t even have to register as sex offender. (World Net Daily)

In contrast, by resigning NOW, Republican House leaders involved in this matter can show that Republicans take responsibility for misconduct when it occurs, reject it, and take the lead in working to make sure it doesn’t happen again. If they drag their feet and appear to have been “forced out,” an important opportunity to recover from this scandal will have been lost. Prolonging this political disaster so close to the election, will only put “arrows in the quiver” of our political adversaries. Unless there is some, heretofore, unreleased evidence that unequivocally exonerates those in positions of responsibility; the “smart” political move for them is to take the “high road” and resign their leadership positions immediately, keep their House seats (if they can) to maintain GOP control, and groom their successors for 2008. This would then shift some of the focus onto those who may have delayed the release of this information for maximum political advantage, but in doing so needlessly endangered more underage congressional pages in the meantime.

Why is this important for supporters of Dr. Rice in 2008?

If the Democrats control the House; the Bush administration, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as part of that administration, will be hauled in front of politically-motivated “kangaroo Congressional hearings” designed solely to paralyze the last two years of the Bush administration and “bloody the political nose” of any members of the administration, including Condi, prior to 2008.

Hearings, and more threats similar to those made prior to the airing of The Path to 9-11, will be made against media outlets in preparation for 2008.

In the event of a closely contested 2008 presidential race, the final result could be determined by the House of Representatives.

The loss of even a single congressional seat could be crucial in November, and later in 2008. Get active in your community, drive other like-minded voters to the poll. Volunteer, get active, talk to others about your hopes for Condi 2008. If you can afford it, take election day 2006 off from work. (Or if you plan on staying up on election night at your local party headquarters, maybe take off the following day!) If you live in Central Florida, help Joe Negron (quickly recruited by the Florida GOP to take Foley’s place) get the message out that a vote for Mark Foley is a vote for him and not Foley. (Florida law does not permit changing the name on the ballot at this late date.) Negron is a Florida State Representative that dropped out of the race for Attorney General — leaving him with over $1 million in the bank that he can now use to try and keep Foley’s seat as a “safe” Republican district. We’ll post a link to his campaign website as soon as possible. (Tallahassee Democrat, Guardian - UK)

Right, or wrong, celebrities play a large role in our nation’s political life.  It’s a point that shouldn’t be lost on us and our efforts.

It took Cher to turn the issue of better combat helmets into a newsworthy item.  And she was more successful than all of our generals, wounded veterans, etc.  (MSNBC, ABC)  Dr. Rice, being something of a celebrity herself, has had a large measure of success getting the Darfur region into the news — especially with her trip to the region last year.  (Security Council statement, State Dept. fact sheet)  But when George Clooney and Mira Sorvino  (MSNBC, Asbury Park Press, SaveDafur.org, USINFO, All American Patriots, Heritage Foundation report),  get on the soap  box, it’s on every major network in a major way.  Do not underestimate the power of celebrity.  Americans are addicted to it, just take a look around at at any checkout aisle in any supermarket.

Do not be shy about putting celebrity to work for us!  Condistas, since 2004, have had their photo’s taken with a variety of celebrities: Michele Malkin, Senator Cornyn, Dick Morris, Niger Innis, various television interviews, etc.  There’s a reason that they have “photo ops” — because they work!  That’s why Condi has her photo taken with every visiting dignitary to the State Department.  (Or perhaps it’s more correct to say that they’re having their photo taken with her.) Condi has used celebrities for promoting her own agenda at the State Department.  So, to whatever extent possible, we need to incorporate celebrity into our strategy.  (As the Left is so fond of saying, “Think globally, act locally.”)

 Most of us don’t know any major film or television stars well enough to ask them for a “photo op,” or even if they’re Republicans.  So you may be thinking, “How am I going to use “celebrity” to to promote CONDI 2008?”  Well, here are three suggestions:

1. Politicians.  Election season is prime time for ”photo ops” with politicians.  Without being too obnoxious, it’s fairly easy to get your photo taken with gubernatorial, senate and house candidates.

   Here are a few pointers.  If the candidate is overwhelmed with the crowd don’t overlook their spouses.  It’s astonishing how many times a candidate’s spouse is ignored — almost to the point of rudeness — especially at smaller gatherings on rural campaign stops.  Lieutenant Governors and their spouses are frequently much more “available” to “nobodies” like us.   This is a situation where ”bigger is not better.”  The campaign events in a major city are generally going to be heavily attended.  But a campaign stop in a rural county is frequently a much more intimate affair with more opportunities for interaction.  In the brief moment you’re going to be with the candidate, don’t “corner” them for an endorsement, or overt statement of support.  No smart politician is going to do that until we’re alot closer to 2008.  (Although in our experience, most will spontaneously make encouraging, even if non-committal, remarks such as: “Condi’s great.”,  “I’d love to see her run.”,  “She scares the Democrats to death.”)  If anyone expresses any concern, just reassure them that they’re not going to find any off-the-cuff remarks on the Internet the next day unless they clearly give their approval.  And you may get a real gem of quotation — even if short of an endorsement.  Several politicians, or their staffers, have told us that although they couldn’t issue a statement of endorsement, they’d be happy to have a “photo op” with a Condista (a term legitimized when Laura Bush mentioned us in regards to 2008) or in front of a Condi 2008 display.

2. Authors.  You’d be amazed what an author will do at a book signing for the price of few books.  And you can get them to “jump through hoops” if you show up with a local reporter — even if it is from the local community college’s FM station (usually available for the cost of a ride), or your local retirement community’s newsletter.   A microphone, or reporter’s notebook, is all it takes to have them at your mercy.   Here again, “the smaller the better” when choosing events to attend.

3. Reporters.  You’d never believe this but (in general) print, and to a somewhat lesser extent, radio journalists and local talk show hosts have BIG egos and are hungry for exposure.  If a local reporter, editor, or radio commentator mentions Condi in a positive light (Although there might be the rare situation where highlighting a negative news item might be appropriate.), a quick e-mail, or telephone, request for a digital “head shot” will usually be successful if coupled with a mention that it might appear on our website, or blog, along with a link to the article (if available.) or broadcast audio.

These are ideas for “cold” contacts — where you have no real previous experience with the person in question.  Of course, if you have a personal connection to a celebrity whose famous, and not infamous, that’s another matter that depends on the individuals involved.

Hope this gives you some ideas for some “photo ops” of your own!  And no matter where you go always remember: make sure you have a high quality digital camera handy at all times!!!  Happy “photo-oping!”

The stakes for the 2006 election are huge. And it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that when “Secretary Rice” becomes “President Rice” that she’ll be in a position to govern effectively. If control of the Senate or the House is lost in 2006, her position will be weakened considerably.

Diana Irey in front of the camera in her effort to unseat a Congressional incumbant, Jack Murtha.

“Rightroots is a broad coalition of conservatives joining together in support of a solid slate of Republican candidates for the US House and Senate. Properly funded, these candidates represent our best chance to retain control of Congress and to enact a conservative agenda.” (Taken from the ABC Pac website. link)

You may not agree with every position taken by every candidate on their slate of candidates, but that isn’t the point. The nightmare of having “Speaker Pelosi” pouring sand into the legislative machinery and tying up the administration with endless politically motivated “investigations” must prompt ALL of us to ACT. She would make Jeffords defection in 2000 that lost control of the Senate in the first part of the Bush administration pale in comparison.

One of the more notable candidates listed on Rightroots slate is Diana Irey (PA₁₂) the Republican challenger to John Murtha. (campaign website) Think about how sweet it would be on election night at your local Republican Party headquarters (Where every Condista ought to be — proudly displaying their Condi 2008 gear — and spreading the message!) to hear that Diana Irey unseated Murtha!

Van Taylor in Iraq

Another interesting candidate is Van Taylor (TX₁₇). He’s a real renaissance man, a Harvard graduate who, to the best of our knowledge, is the only Iraq War veteran running for Congress. He still serves as a Major in the Marine Reserves, but he didn’t “fly a desk” during the war. He fought with the USMC’s 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company, frequently deep inside enemy territory. (campaign website)

Please visit all of their websites.

She is, to almost all Republicans, the “800-pound gorilla,” in the 2008 election. (This is not a reference to her any of her physical characteristics.) However, Americans for Dr. Rice has been very careful not to follow Dick Morris’ lead and make the next presidential contest a strictly “Condi vs. Hillary” affair. The possibility of two women in the race is a great “hook” — for book sales and bookings on the talk show circuit. But it is easier to get “blind-sided” when you have political tunnel vision. At the end of last month, there was a lot of media hoopla about the Time magazine cover with Hillary in a “presidential” profile and the “Love her-Hate her” check boxes. (Time magazine article, poll, video)

However, in spite of Hillary’s political money machine, (Hill PAC),at the end of the election cycle the only result that is important is whether you have won the general election, or not. In August, the junior senator from New York was featured on the cover of Time magazine. The results of these polls are most revealing. Conventional wisdom has it that Hillary could easily get the Democratic party’s nomination. She only needs to ask. But if the Democratic party’s ultimate goal is to win the general election, her nomination might not be their best strategy. Should we focus on Hillary, or let the Democratic primary process filter out popular, but ultimately, losing candidates. Whenever Hillary hits the news, it is undeniable that our website sees a “counter-Hillary” effect, traffic goes up, etc. There’s even a Stop Hill PAC organization. (link, We have no association with this organization.) Our independence allows us to do, and say, things that would be inappropriate from a campaign. Is this something that we can (should?) exploit?

Last month at the Iowa State Fair, there was a Presidential straw poll. In true Iowa fashion, the “Cast Your Kernel” poll had a corn theme. Channel 13 WHO-TV sponsored the poll . they wrote the names of 10 potential Democrats and 10 potential Republican presidential candidates on hard kernels of corn. People could take a kernel of their choice and place it in a jar.

Condoleezza Rice tied for second with Giuliani on the Republican side, each receiving 20% . McCain came in first with 24%.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton tied for first with 33% each of the Democratic kernels.

Read the whole story here

Iowan Condistas: we need your help to spread the good word! Sign up on our website. If you’d like to help plan an event in your hometown, e-mail me at: Illinois@4condi.com. We have everything you need: info, talking points, balloons, stickers, and buttons.

Wes Fowler

In Opinion Editorials (”All the opinions that are fit to print” — a project of the Frontiers of Freedom center-right think tank), Lee Ellis, a retired journalist who previously worked for CBS and Gannett, filed his August 8, 2006, article, Candidates for President in 2008–Who’s Needed in an Era of Terrorism? (He must’ve worked in the days before Dan Rather lowered CBS’ journalistic standards below those of the National Enquirer.) His thesis is that Condi and Newt are the two top contenders for 2008 and that the choice between the two of them is dependent on who the Democratic nominee will be. Namely, if Hillary is nominated by the Democrats, then Condi must be the Republican nominee — echoing Dick Morris. If anyone else is nominated, then the Republicans should pick Newt. According to Mr. Ellis:

While both would make excellent presidents who would be strong leaders, it depends on whom the party of Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy nominate for President. If it chooses Hillary Clinton, then only a smart woman can defeat her. A man will lose! Only Dr Rice can outdo her on TV and, let’s face it, the 2008 presidency is going to depend on TV debates and interviews…The media has also proved by its coverage of Hillary’s 2004 Senate race and TV debates with Rick Lazio, that it will let no man beat her. Many feel strongly that the US needs its first woman President. If Hillary is nominated as the Democrat candidate, expect another Clinton presidency and all it will entail for eight solid years -UNLESS - Dr. Condoleezza Rice is nominated as the Republican choice. Those TV debates will be electrifying and Hillary will go down to defeat but a woman will reign!

At least we can agree on half of his hypothesis! The problem with the second half is that Newt, great guy that he is, is not electable in the November, 2008, general election.

Judging by how often Dr. Rice appears on Timmy Russert’s show, we conclude that he must enjoy being dominated by powerful women!

The focus on gender and race by the media in 2008 will be unavoidable if there is a female presidential candidate from either party. It will be a “first” for the nation, and provide political pundits around the world, and of all political stripes, a bottomless pit of material for their craft. But their focus will be misdirected — as so often has been the case in recent years. The media’s “talking heads” will discuss such issues as: “Is America ready for a female president?” or “Is America ready for a (fill in the blank) president?” However, in 2008, you will not find “a woman”, or “female candidate of color,” or even “caucasian female candidate that has forgiven lecherous husband his past affairs then lied about it” on the ballot.

(more…)