HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Why is it that pundits th...

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:13 AM

Why is it that pundits think that Condi would be such a great choice for VP?

I know that she says she's not interested and it's not entirely likely that she would be tapped for the spot because of her (allegedly) more "moderate" views on hot-button social issues (i.e. abortion) and the fact that she in African-American in a party teeming with racists, but just about everybody in the punditocracy seems to gloss over her foreign policy disasters from the George W. Bush (mis-)administration, most notably her incompetence as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR during the lead-up to 9/11 and her cheerleading for the Iraq invasion/occupation thereafter.
Her tenure as Secretary of State wasn't marked by any notable achievements either (no major controversies that I recall but certainly nothing to write home about either). So, given the fact that President Obama and Joe Biden can flex their muscles when it comes to foreign policy by highlighting that they took out the perpetrator of the attacks that Rice and her boss failed to prevent and then failed to apprehend during the remainder of their TWO terms in office, why do so many pundits believe it be a "good idea" for Mitt to remind everybody about this by nominating her? My only guess is that she is intelligent, a woman, and African-American to boot but even if that might make the GOP ticket more "presentable" to the general public, I'm not sure the GOP "base" would be equally as accepting- and Mitt can't afford to lose them, of course.

16 replies, 1549 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:27 AM

1. They are the same people who thought Mr. Steele would be a good reaction to President Obama. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:17 PM

6. People are dancing around this but it's pretty obvious.

She is an African American woman. In their tiny minds they think: Hillary and Obama rolled into one.

Unfortunately, she's devoid of personality, and is a warmonger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 01:51 PM

7. Yep, and...

Putting her on the ticket also lets them say, "See? We aren't sexist, and we aren't racist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 02:19 PM

8. Yep, they also thought Palin would appeal to women voters.

After all, she's got a vagina, too, so women will like her, is the way they "think".

Same about skin color.

They utterly fail to take into account things like personality or policy stances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arbusto_baboso (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:51 PM

11. Yup

Frankly, if I were a woman and/or African-American, I'd be insulted by such a tactic. Obviously, it didn't work in 2008 when the supposed exodus of former Hillary supporters to Sarah never materialized. Of course, Republicans never seem to tire of trying the same old stupid tactics over and over and over again, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do try it again this year. I kind of thought that we were headed in a Rubio direction for VP but after President Obama decided to act- instead of just talk like Rubio was doing at the the time- on some minor immigration reform, his potential usefulness to Romney seemed to evaporate. It will be interesting to see in just what direction Mitt ultimately goes in terms of choosing a VP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:36 PM

14. I believe Willard is pathologically unable to pick a VP who will compete with him for attention.

Willard is a spoiled rich boy who has neither grown up nor suffered any adverse effect from his own actions.
He is the center of his own universe and cannot abide anyone who might challenge his own supremacy.

The odds of him picking anything but the most vanilla boring pick as VP are the same as those of
President Obama attacking conservative values as the cause our economic problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

15. Except the MSM won't refer to him/her as "boring" or "vanilla"

they will say he/she is "seasoned", "responsible", "steady", "experienced". The MSM tends to be "strengths-based" and gives the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Republicans but digs deep to find any possible flaw when it comes to Dems- or so it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 05:58 PM

16. The MSM is the Corporate Owned Media never let the COM dictate to you. Cheers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:43 AM

2. She's useless. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:38 AM

3. because she is a republican

put an R behind its name, and literally, the "liberal media" would breathlessly proclaim a pile of dog crape the next republican STAR!

Next time a D gets advanced as a STAR will be the first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:43 AM

4. They don't really. They're filling air time and trying to get people to talk

Pundits gotta pund about something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:14 PM

5. They, like Romney, are looking for ANYBODY who won't induce either narcosis or disgust

They are coming up a little short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:49 PM

9. "No one could have predicted they would try to use an airplane as a missle."

THAT Condi Rice?

The book The Terror Timeline includes numerous articles that are often cited to suggest that the method of flying planes into buildings was known by U.S. officials:

In 1994, there were three examples of failed attempts to deliberately crash planes into buildings, including one where a lone pilot
crashed a small plane into the lawn of the White House.
The Bojinka Plot was a foiled large-scale al Qaeda terrorist attack to blow up eleven airliners and their passengers as they flew from Asia to America, due to take place in January 1995.
The 2000 edition of the FAA’s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation said that although Osama bin Laden ‘is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,’ adding, ‘Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.’”
In April 2001, NORAD ran a war game in which the Pentagon was to become incapacitated; a NORAD planner proposed the simulated crash of a hijacked foreign commercial airliner into the Pentagon but the Joints Chiefs of Staff rejected that scenario as "too unrealistic".
In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft missile batteries were installed following a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill George Bush and other world leaders.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating U.S. reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles (6 km) from Washington Dulles International Airport.

A 2004 USA Today article, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons", describes pre-9/11 NORAD drills that suggest they were prepared for such an attack as happened on 9/11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

And let's not forget the book, "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy were that is exactly done. It was a joint session of congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_of_Honor It was closely followed by "Executive Decision".

Incompetent twits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:38 PM

10. Don't forget the shoe-shopping during Hurricane Katrina

Okay, I know that the State Department wasn't involved in the Katrina debacle. But it looked pretty classless to be off shoe-shopping in NYC while thousands of black people drowned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:08 AM

12. Because she's an "expert" on the Soviet Union (in case we go into a time warp)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Ripley (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:55 AM

13. Given the fact that Romney considers Russia

to be our #1 geopolitical foe, I guess he just might need her expertise after he ushers in a new "cold war". Or maybe the russkies have had us (but not Romney) fooled all these years and that the Soviet Union didn't actually break up- they just wanted us to think they did (cue Simpsons clip from "Simpson Tide").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread