Condolezza Rice Repuclican candidate in 2008?

She would get my vote. If I was an American citizen. And if I would vote for the Republicans.

Do you think she would be nominated as candidate for presidency in 2008? I know she repeatedly has denied having any aspirations of the kind, but still ...

 

I would have to consider all the possible candidates carefully but I would be likely to vote for Condi if she does run. Especially if Hillary is her opponent.

 

How about the 'Governator'?
:smok:

 

"I'll be back..."

 

Unless the Constitution is amended (there has been some talk of doing so) Arnold is barred from running for President as a naturalized citizen.

 

I remember a commentator for one of the British Newspapers suggested that Rice could stand for presidency after Bush. He spoke of how he has met her, and how:

"Her genuine attitude and calm style would bring a revivial of faith and good politics back to the Republicans."

I don't know much about US politics, but she seems like a good candidate.

 

If he runs for presidency, do you think anyone will be brought from the idea of voting for him by the fact that he is doing a terrible job governing California?

Would Rice get a lot of feminist votes just for being female?

 

Yes, I've heard about amending Constitution, apparently to get Governator to run for President...

Ofcourse we all should remember what happened last time when an Austrian managed to get hold on leadership of foreign country...

 

I'd vote for Rice.She seems to be a tough cookie.If Billary runs,I'd vote for anyone but that bitch!

 

Not sure if Condi will run for President but she is about the only Republican right now that most folks like. I kinda hope a Libertarian gets the office but that's probably not going to happen.

 

Well I don't think that he is doing a terrible job of running California. I'm not convinced that the majority of Californians think so either. We shall see what they think when his term ends and he runs for reelection.

 

A Libertarian would be my first choice too however I'm afraid that there isn't a Libertarian candidate with a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning.

 

I can see why Roel is asking if Dutch press is anything like Norwegian and Swedish press where Arnold only gets attention when he's in trouble, no matter how minor. And there's of course the 'actor turns politician' thingy which don't have much tradition in Europe, and which is often ridiculed when American politics is discussed. Not very objective I'm afraid.

The guy is running one of the most powerful economies of the world and a state with a population almost the size of France. Press coverage in Europe should perhaps be less concerned with his acting skills and more concerned with the actual politics.

 

You got that right. I've seen their platform in the past, and the Libertarians aren't liberal enough to attract many Democrats, nor conservative enough to win many Republicans.

BTW, I'd vote for Secretary Rice, especially given who the Democrats are likely to put forward for the presidency in 2008. But Ms. Rice is, IMHO, a good, competent person with solid credentials in government.

 

condolleza Rice would not ,in my view , be a good choice , her lack of
emphaty is shocking
for my money the best billing would be

collins Powell vs howard Dean


:bang: :bang:

 

Actually, politicians do only get attention when they are in trouble; if all is going well, there is no need to report on it (according to the press, anyway). However, the news I have seen of Schwarzenegger as governor of California wasn't about him being an actor or having a terrible accent in spite of having an American wife and having lived in the country for more than 25 years. It was about him making dreadfully bad decisions.

A poll released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California indicates the public is dissatisfied with the governor's handling of coastal issues such as beach pollution, overfishing and controlling urban runoff. - San Diego Union-Tribune

Repeatedly and steadfastly, Governor Schwarzenegger has resisted the siren call from Democrats and predictable left-wing voices like the Los Angeles Times to increase taxes in order to close the state's deficit, even in the face of polls purporting to "show" that California voters were willing to pay higher taxes. - Human Events Online (conservative periodical)

Teachers are frustrated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's refusal to repay $2 billion borrowed from mandated Proposition 98 education funding. Education leaders who agreed to the onetime state budget bailout believed the money would be returned in the 2005-2006 spending plan. Instead, the governor wants to repay the funds over 15 years starting with the 2006-2007 fiscal year. (...) Teachers aren't the only ones taking issue with Schwarzenegger's policies. Nurses at the rally are angry over an emergency order by Schwarzenegger late last year that suspended a law that would have reduced the nurse-patient ratio. The law had been set to take effect the first of the year." - News10.net

"Arnold Schwarzenegger invested all of his fast diminishing political capital in an effort to win voter support for initiatives that ranged from giving him the unfettered right to make deep Budget cuts, to making it easier for education authorities to sack incompetent teachers.
But the $300 million referendum campaign was doomed from the start.
California's powerful public sector unions vigorously opposed the various measures, insisting, among other things that the referendum was a monumental waste of taxpayers' money." - Hamish Robertson

And so on and so on.

 

Because a poll purports to indicate that a politician has made possibly unpopular decisions? Happens all the time and with all politicians.

You have that quote out of context. They are making a positive statement about Arnold when they use the phrase "resisted the siren call from Democrats and predictable left-wing voices".

So a couple of stronly Democratic unions are unhappy with him..so what?

More union opposition to Schwarzenegger...again so what? That is entirely predictable and expected. As far as the opinion polls go, well a leader cannot put every decision up for a popularity vote. That is why the voters elected him. To make tough decisions. If more of them disagree than agree then he will not be reelected.
I see no evidence of "dreadfully bad descisions". What I do see evidence of is a divided electorate such as exists all across the US. Schwarzenegger cannot please everyone all the time. It isn't possible.

 

These people all disagree with him for clear and defined reasons, not just because they're bound to. Also, you make it sound as if a predictable vote against a leader doesn't make him any worse of a leader, whereas in fact the other side of the political spectrum exists purely because there are people who consistently believe the decisions of the other end are bad decisions. Being a Democrat doesn't make you wrong and it doesn't make your opinion worthless.

The quote I had "out of context" was in fact put there on purpose. That conservative webiste defends Schwarzenegger's faulty policy and it is most interesting to see how it tries to do that.

 

Exactly. Just what is to be expected with any Governor. But as I recall you were the one that said:
" It was about him making dreadfully bad decisions. "
The "dreadfully bad" decisions you are referring to are only seen as dreadfully bad by those who wouldn't support him no matter what he did.
Liberal Demoncrats( ), Unions and Leftists in general.
IMO he has done pretty good job so far as Governor of the largest(and most divided) state in the US.

 

Also bear in mind that the governor he replaced was recalled by the citizens of California for doing a terrible job of running the state.