Announcement

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 12:32 PM

Noonan: Ennui the People -- Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan

Noonan: Ennui the People

America is in crisis. Why is the presidential campaign so lifeless?

Wall Street Journal Online
Peggy Noonan
7/12/2012

Excerpt:

"The 2012 presidential election is unusual. It is a crisis election like 1932 or 1980, with the American people knowing we're at a turning point and knowing that who we pick now really matters. But crisis elections tend to bring drama—a broad sense of excitement and passion. We're not seeing that this year. We're not seeing passionate proclamations from supporters of one candidate or the other that their guy is just right for the moment, their guy is the answer. I'm speaking of the excitement of deep belief: "FDR will save the day." "Reagan will turn it around."

President Obama's supporters don't talk like that, or think it. Neither do most of Mitt Romney's. It's all so subdued.

What is behind the general lack of passion? A theory in two parts:

First, people know that what America needs right now is the leadership of a kind of political genius. Second, they know neither of the candidates is a political genius.

That's why it seems so flat when you talk to voters or political professionals.

It's as if the key job opened up just when the company might go under. A new CEO would make all the difference. But none of the applicants leave the members of the board saying, "This guy is the answer to our prayers." In the end, they'll make a decision, and it will be a prudent, tentative one: "This one seems a bit better than that one."

Why do people think we need a kind of political genius? Because they know exactly how deep our problems are and exactly how divided our nation is. We need a president who knows and understands politics because he knows and understands people and can galvanize them. When he speaks, you listen, in part because you believe he'll give it to you straight, in part because his views seems commonsensical, in part because something in his optimism pings right into your latent hopefulness, and in part because he's direct and doesn't hide his meaning in obfuscation, abstraction, clichés and dead words.

Think of what we face domestically—only domestically.

Every voter in the country knows we have to get a hold of spending and begin to turn it around. At the same time—really, the same time—we have to get a hold of the tax system and remake it so that at the very least we can remove the sense of agitated grievance that marks our daily economic life, and at most we can encourage growth. If you really try to do these things, you will make a lot of people unhappy. It will take a political talent of the highest order to hold people together during the process, to allow them the luxury of feeling trust in your judgment.

The next president will have to wrangle with Congress, and when lawmakers balk, he'll have to go over their heads and tell the American people the plan, the reasons it will work, and why it's fair and good. He'll have to get them to tell their congressmen, by phone calls and mail and by collaring them in the neighborhood and at the town hall, to back the president. When this happens to enough of them—well, as Reagan used to say, when they feel the heat, they see the light. The members go to the speaker, and suddenly the speaker is knocking back a drink with the president, and in the end a deal gets made. Things get pushed inch by inch toward progress, and suddenly there's a sense things can work again. That encourages an air of unity and of national purpose, which itself gives a boost to public morale.

Anyway, the next president will have to do that sort of thing, and it will take deep political gifts. We have not seen that genius in Mr. Obama. Whether you will vote for him or not, you know you haven't seen it. He seems to view politics as his weary duty, something he had to do on his way to greatness.

When he goes over the heads of Congress to the people, it's like he threw a dead fish over the transom—it lands with a "Thwap!" and makes a mess, and people run away. As for Mr. Romney it is a commonplace in punditry to implore him to speak clearly of where he'll go and how and why we should follow.

Both candidates seem largely impenetrable—it's hard to know them, figure them. With Mr. Romney, you have a sense of what he's been, what jobs he's held, and his general approach. But do you have a solid sense of who he'd be and what he'd do as president? Probably not. Even he may not know. As for Mr. Obama, the more facts you know, the more you don't understand him, the more you can't quite grok him.

Neither has a flair for politics, and neither seems to love it. Both come from minority parts of the American experience, and both often seem to be translating as they speak, from their own natural inner language to their vision of how "normal Americans" think.

What does all this suggest? That voters this year will tend to be practical in their choice and modest in their expectations. Which isn't all bad. But joy would be more fun.

We must end with some burly, optimistic thoughts or we'll hurl ourselves over a transom and go "Thawp!" 1. There's still time—more than 100 days—for each candidate to go deeper, get franker, and light some kind of flame. 2. The acceptance speeches are huge opportunities to do that. 3. The debates, if they do not sink into formalized torpor or anchor-led superficialities, could be not only decisive but revealing of greater depths. 4. Mr. Romney's vice presidential choice will matter.

About which a note. Speaking the other day to a gathering of businesspeople from across the country, I mentioned the subdued nature of the election and my thoughts as to its reasons. I was surprised to get no push-back afterward, even from political enthusiasts, only agreement.

But the news: When conversation turned to the vice presidential nominee, I said we all know the names of those being considered, spoke of a few, and then said Condoleezza Rice might be a brilliant choice. - (bold and underline emphasis added)

Here spontaneous applause burst forth.

Consider: A public figure of obvious and nameable accomplishment whose attainments can't be taken away from her. Washington experience—she wouldn't be learning on the job. Never run for office but no political novice. An academic, but not ethereal or abstract. A woman in a year when Republicans aren't supposed to choose a woman because of what is now called the 2008 experience—so the choice would have a certain boldness. A black woman in a campaign that always threatens to take on a painful racial overlay. A foreign-policy professional acquainted with everyone who's reigned or been rising the past 20 years."
..........................

View the complete article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

My Comment: When PEGGY NOONAN says that, "Condoleeza Rice might be a brilliant choice" for VP, we need to pay close attention. Peggy Noonan is one of the ELITE INDIVIDUALS WHO ATTENDED THE RECENT BILDERBERG 2012 MEETING. Her comments must be given special consideration as they may reflect 'insider information' and give a hint as to the current thinking of the globalists.

Bilderberg 2012: The Official List of Participants:

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/I...ants-Infowars?

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 01:29 PM

Could It Be Condi for VP?

Rush Limbaugh
7/11/2012

Excerpt:

"BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I've been thinking about something. There's a story I had in the Stack. I didn't get to this yesterday. It's a Reuters story, "Romney May Name Running Mate Early in Election Race." There have been names floating on this. There's Bob Portman in Ohio. There's Marco Rubio, who continually says it isn't gonna be him. Bobby Jindal. Governor Christie -- who may be talking himself out of it, if he was in there, but he's openly said that he would take it.

Well, he's openly said that he would seriously consider it. There are a number of names. Tim Pawlenty is considered one of the front-runners. So today Romney goes to the NAALCP convention. One of the names that is also on this list that shows up now and then but not in every story about it, is Condoleezza Rice. Now, I don't have any idea who Romney's gonna choose, but when I saw this story yesterday, "Romney May Name Running Mate Early in Election Race," I thought, "Why?"

This is awful early to name a VP.

Of course, the Reuters headline says "may name." But it's a fairly lengthy story about what the advantages in doing so could be, and they list the people that are possible. It mentions here, "Romney is also considering whether to name a woman, his wife, Ann, said." To the team of people that would select a running mate. And I've seen Condoleezza Rice's name mentioned off and on. Here goes Romney to the NAALCP. What are the odds that he would pick Condoleezza Rice next week, coming off of this speech to the NAALCP?
.............................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...e_condi_for_vp

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 01:34 PM

Romney-Rice?

The Weekly Standard
William Kristol
7/6/2012

Excerpt:

"Erin McPike's "close examination of the [Romney] campaign's activity" at RealClearPolitics suggests four leading contenders for Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick—former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Ohio senator Rob Portman, Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. McPike's article is an intelligent explanation of why these men seem to be leading the pack, with New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, and Florida senator Marco Rubio as long shots.

Over at National Review Online, Jeffrey Anderson makes an intelligent case for Paul Ryan as the strongest pick from among them. For whatever it’s worth, I'm with Anderson, in the pro-Ryan camp. And if not Ryan, then I think my second choice would be Rubio or Jindal.

But it doesn't matter what Jeff Anderson thinks, or what I think. What matters is what Mitt Romney thinks.

Here's a clue to what Mitt Romney thinks—a clue that McPike doesn't mention, and that the media in general seem to be glossing over. Ann Romney—who presumably is better informed about her husband's thinking than the rest of us—said this week, "We've been looking at [picking a woman], and I love that option as well."

Who's the woman? It could be Kelly Ayotte or New Mexico governor Susana Martinez. But as much as I like both of them, I suspect Mitt Romney will see them as risky picks, lacking sufficient high-level government experience to unequivocally answer the question of whether they'd be qualified to take over. No, the woman Ann Romney likely has in mind is Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state.

Rice wowed the crowd—and seemed to impress Mitt Romney, who was standing beside her—when she spoke in a featured role at a Romney campaign event two weeks ago in Park City, Utah. Rice is qualified, would be a poised (if novice) candidate, and would complement Romney in terms of area of expertise, gender (obviously!), and life experience. Rice offers an unusual combination of being at once a reassuring pick (she served at the highest levels of the federal government for eight years) and an exciting one."
......................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ce_648182.html

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 02:29 PM

Audio Exclusive: The Speech That Landed Condi On Romney's List

A call to “storm Washington D.C.” Speculation in Park City that “she wants to be Vice President.”

BuzzFeed
McKay Coppins
7/13/2012

Excerpt:

"As the The Drudge Report-drives speculation that Condoleezza Rice is now a contender in the Republican veepstakes, surrogates and supporters in Mitt Romney's orbit say Rice electrified Romney's circle with a speech she delivered last month at the candidate's closed-door fundraising retreat in Park City.

Rice's forceful, and surprisingly partisan 13-minute address — audio of which has been obtained by BuzzFeed — won her two standing ovations from the gathering of big-money donors and GOP elite &mdash. It was widely considered the highlight of the weekend, several people present told BuzzFeed.

One Romney surrogate said he was surprised by the red meat rhetoric employed by Rice, who has largely retired from the political arena in recent years, devoting her time instead to an academic career at Stanford.

"She's either very worried about a socialist threat to America, or she wants to be Vice President," the surrogate said.

Rice would still be an unlikely selection as running mate. She is, in particular, a supporter of abortion rights; Romney has specifically promised anti-abortion groups that his running mate will share their views.

But Rice's speech captured the mood of conservatives, painting a bleak portrait of the "dangerous, chaotic times" facing the country, and blamed President Obama for bringing on international weakness, class warfare, and fiscal recklessness. She even urged those in attendance to "storm Washington D.C." on behalf of Romney.

Framing her speech around three major "shocks to the international system" in the past decade — the 9/11 attacks, the global financial crisis, and the Arab Spring — Rice said Obama's failed governance has thrown the world deeper into crisis.

"What we're feeling most is not just that tumult, we've been through tumult before," she said. "What we're feeling is the absence of American leadership."
........................................

View the complete article, including audio track, at:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...ded-condi-on-r

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 08:54 PM

The GOP’s crush on Condoleezza Rice

Politico
Alexander Burns
7/13/2012

Excerpt:

"The Condoleezza Rice mirage is back.

With a banner headline on the Drudge Report Thursday night proclaiming her a leading prospect for the vice presidency, Rice has returned to a familiar role: the irresistible, all-too-perfect fantasy candidate of the Republican Party.

Never mind the fact that there are glaring reasons why the former Secretary of State could be a political fiasco. She’s an abortion rights-supporting former Bush administration official who has never run for public office and whose time in Washington is remembered less than fondly by many.

But as the highest-ranking African American woman ever to serve in public office – and one of few black leaders the Republican Party has – Rice has a demographic allure that has not faded since she left Foggy Bottom. With the GOP working to define its foreign policy platform, Rice is one of the country’s most famous diplomats and an accomplished academic to boot.

In a way, she’s the Republican Party’s answer to Sam Nunn or Evan Bayh: two former conservative Democratic senators, hawkish on national defense, who were mentioned for years as potential national candidates simply because they looked so good on paper. A running joke in Democratic circles over multiple presidential cycles: Those pushing Nunn and Bayh had never heard either man give a speech or try to work a rope line.

“She’s the shining ornament at the top of the Christmas tree that we can always admire but never reach,” said GOP consultant Bruce Haynes, who called Rice a “figure of eternal fascination” for Republicans.

“If you drew up a candidate on the drawing board, it would look a lot like Condoleezza Rice. Except she wouldn’t be pro-choice, which could really depress enthusiasm for the ticket,” Haynes continued. “And she wouldn’t be tied to the Bush administration, which is something that, given the choice, the campaign probably doesn’t want to litigate.”

As it is, the Drudge plug for Rice in 2012 was greeted largely with a collective groan on the part of the Republican operative class.

To most, it looked like an all-too-obvious attempt on the part of Drudge – a known Romney campaign ally – to divert attention from several days’ worth of punishing headlines about Romney’s record at the private equity firm Bain Capital.

One Republican campaign strategist emailed in reaction to the report: “Doesn’t it have to be someone believable to actually distract people and at least pretend it’s not a diversionary tactic?”

Yet Rice’s allure within elite Republican ranks is undeniable. Even as Washington scoffed at Drudge’s reporting, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan waxed effusive in her Wall Street Journal column on what the Stanford professor could bring to a national ticket."
...........................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78484.html

**bsteadman** · 07-13-2012, 09:09 PM

Report of Condi Rice for VP Stirs Controversy

Newsmax
Jim Meyers
7/13/2012

Excerpt:

"A published report stating that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now the “front-runner” for the Republican vice presidential nomination has sparked chatter across the political spectrum.

The Drudge Report created a buzz Thursday night when it asserted that Mitt Romney has narrowed the field of candidates for vice president to a “handful,” and said “a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Condoleezza Rice.”

The story noted that Rice received two standing ovations when she spoke at Romney’s Utah retreat several weeks ago, “and everyone left with her name on their lips.”

Also on Thursday night, Sarah Palin, the GOP’s vice presidential candidate in 2008, said Rice would be a “wonderful” running mate for Romney.

Palin told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren about Rice: “I think her credentials far surpass Barack Obama or [Vice President] Joe Biden.”

It also might be noted that when Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, he chose a woman, Kerry Healey, as his lieutenant governor, and Rice was the top choice of Republicans in a CNN poll in April asking who respondents would like to see as Romney’s running mate.

But Rice herself has repeatedly stated that she is not interested in the vice presidential slot.

“I think we should go in another direction and find somebody who really wants to be in elected office,” Rice said recently. “How many ways can I say it? Not me.”

Rice, now the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said she prefers policy to politics, adding that the latter is not her “strong suit,” the Washington Post reported.

And some conservative voices have dismissed the Drudge Report story. Erick Erickson wrote on his RedState blog that speculation about Rice as Romney’s running mate is “silly.”

He added: “I don’t know who is hitting the crack rock tonight in the rumor mill, but bull shiitake mushrooms.”

Erickson pointed to two factors likely to discourage a Rice nomination: She has called herself “mildly pro-choice” on abortion rights, and she spent eight years working for President George W. Bush, the least popular ex-president alive, according at least one poll.

Katrina Trinko, writing in National Review Online, said Rice’s years in the Bush Cabinet would “seem likely to generate controversy” and observed that there is no group of voters “she would automatically attract.”

Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said a Rice nomination would be “bad politics.”

Rice and Romney also differ on immigration policy. She has given speeches over the last year publicly lamenting that the Bush administration couldn’t get immigration reforme passed, ABC News reported. Her favorite talking point is: “When did immigrants become the enemy?”
..........................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/rice...7/13/id/445278

**bsteadman** · 07-14-2012, 07:04 PM

Romney’s Condoleezza Rice head fake -- Coach is Right, Kevin "Coach" Collins

Romney’s Condoleezza Rice head fake

Coach is Right
Kevin "Coach" Collins
7/13/2012

Excerpt:

"Mitt Romney is not going to put Condoleeza Rice on his ticket. This is a head fake that many people have fallen for.

Coming on the heels of his successful appearance before the NAACP, Mitt Romney has flipped the political script. By mentioning Rice he has put Barack Obama on defense on the issue of race, something nobody, least of all Obama, ever expected.

By floating the possibility that he could pick former George W. Bush Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, an African American female, as his Vice President, Romney has slammed the Left into a Hobson’s choice that will require them to either praise the choice or attack the idea of having Rice on Romney’s ticket. This is a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for Romney. But it’s not real.

The Drudge factor

To help stoke this Rice “fire” Matt Drudge who has been in the tank for Romney from day one, has put a poll on his opening page. With 300,000 votes the Yes vote is running 2 to 1 ahead.

Romney’s plan relies on the “experts” on both sides playing their parts – and they will. Immediately the conservatives started to howl that they hated the choice – rightly so I do as well- Condoleeza Rice would be a terrible choice. Rice is not a conservative and is on record as being a “mild supporter” of abortion. As a member of Bush’s inner circle, Rice would be an invitation to the Left to change the subject of the campaign from Obama to Bush whom they have been running against for four years.

Van Jones a Communist who served as Obama’s Green Jobs Czar commented on a possible Rice selection. He said, “… if you want to do something shocking, you want the tea party base excited, nobody has talked about Condoleezza Rice….”

The Sunday Morning talk show factor

The Democrat talking heads on the Sunday morning shows will fall into same trap they did in 1988 with the Willie Horton ad. They will repeat it several times and give Romney lots of free free coverage before they realize they have been had, which they have.

Rice is on record as saying she would not accept – this is a head fake."
..........................

View the complete article at:

http://www.coachisright.com/romneys-...ice-head-fake/

**bsteadman** · 07-15-2012, 08:01 PM

Please, No Rice with That Romney

American Thinker
Selwyn Duke
7/15/2012

Excerpt:

"With the rumor that Condoleezza Rice is a frontrunner to be Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, she’s the talk of the town. She’s so intelligent, so sophisticated, so statesmanlike and so scholarly that she could make you wonder if Hillary Clinton really ever was “the most intelligent woman in America.” That’s the pitch, anyway. But when you check this Rice’s ingredients, you have to ask, where’s the beef?

When assessing this, I’m reminded of how the late Christopher Hitchens put Bill Clinton’s so-called intellectual prowess in perspective. The 42nd president has a long history of making statements, Hitchens pointed out, yet what has he ever said that was profound or memorable? Of course, like Clinton and “I feel your pain” or lawyering the word “is,” Rice has made memorable statements. But they’re all hamburger helper—way past the sell-by date.

For instance, when defending the fool’s errand of trying to put a square democratic peg in a round Islamic hole, Rice once said, “We should note that unlike in our Constitutional Convention, the Iraqis have not made a compromise as bad as the one that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man.” Now, let’s put aside the fact that the Iraqis have incorporated Sharia into their constitution. Informed people understand the origin of the three-fifths language. To wit: it was slave states that wanted blacks counted as whole people because this would increase their representation in Congress and hence their power. Northern states, however, wanted to minimize slave-state power and thus didn’t want the slaves counted at all. The result, as is usually the case in democratic republics, was a compromise: the three-fifths compromise.

The only question now is whether Rice didn’t fully understand this—and she probably knows something about the origin of the constitutional language since she called it a “compromise”—or if she was just aiming for a cheap applause line (and a cheap shot at America). Regardless, was hers an intelligent comment?

It should also be noted that European peoples might not have been the first to practice slavery, but they were the first to eliminate it. Yet, to this day, Muslims still practice slavery in places such as Africa. Thus, what is to be concluded when Rice utters, as is her wont, divisive comments such as “when the Founding Fathers said ‘We the people,’ they didn’t mean me”? Is it an intelligent thing to do?

Then try this Rice comment on for size. She also said when defending Iraq policy that it is the kind of people who “once believed that blacks were unfit for democracy” who say “that the people of the Middle East, perhaps because of their color or their creed or their culture or even perhaps because of their religion, are somehow incapable of democracy.”

Now, we know it was Rice’s job under George W. Bush to defend his administration’s policies, but the above simply was not an intelligent defense. How can you conflate an inborn physical characteristic such as skin color with creed, culture and religion, which involve belief? Does Rice not understand why John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”? If a people’s beliefs don’t influence its compatibility with democracy, what does?

Following Rice’s logic out, we’d have to say that a people imbued with Nazi or communist doctrine couldn’t be unfit for democracy, either, as such things are simply “creeds.” Translated, her comment means that beliefs simply don’t matter. Of course, I don’t think this actually is her belief; she surely just didn’t think things through. But is it intelligent to make public pronouncements on matters of import without thinking things through?

Add to this the fact that Rice described herself as “mildly pro-choice,” wishes the U.S. would have signed on to the global-warming scam treaty the Kyoto Protocol, and was so enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s 2008 win that it indicated she might have voted for him, and what kind of profile emerges? She simply is not a conservative—except maybe in the European sense of the term. And, we have to ask, is this an intelligent political ideology?"
....................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...at_romney.html

Announcement

Romney Narrows VP Choices; Condi Emerges as Frontrunner -- Drudge Report

Romney Narrows VP Choices; Condi Emerges as Frontrunner -- Drudge Report

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment