# "I have a dream" fulfilled



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2005)

> *In Rice's rise, many see King's dream refracted*
> Role in White House evokes mixed feelings
> Sunday, January 16, 2005
> 
> ...



This woman could also be the next President of the United States


----------



## LF(CMO) (18 Jan 2005)

In what other country of the World would a black man and woman be in positions of power that Condi Rice and Colin Powell are in?

 Colin Powell could have been the President if he had so chose.  There is a very good possibility that Condi Rice will be both the first woman Pres and the first black.  Come on Dems bring on Billiary!


----------



## onecat (18 Jan 2005)

"In what other country of the World would a black man and woman be in positions of power that Condi Rice and Colin Powell are in?"

IN Canada, Australia, many other countries... this type of freedom is enjoyed by most western nations.   The UK already has a woman PM, and Canada has had many minority ministers and this will only increase as time so on.   So your statment can apply to many nations not just the USA.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Jan 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> In what other country of the World would a black man and woman be in positions of power that Condi Rice and Colin Powell are in?



Ummm....most if not all of the ones in Africa?


----------



## pbi (18 Jan 2005)

Here's a question: in what other country would it be such a big thing? Most Western countries seem to take the idea of female heads of govt or heads of state in stride, and we already have a visible minority as our Governor General, _de facto _ our head of state. My impression of the US is that for all of its good intentions, dynamic freedoms and great energy, there are deep-running streams of social and religious conservatism that most other Western countries would find a bit odd. Imagine a political candidate in Canada, the UK, Australia or NZ making a big issue of religion, or espousing a conservative religious-based agenda. Not much chance of getting elected, is there? But, it appears to me that in the US this can still generate (perhaps on a regional basis) large amounts of voter support. I wonder how our US friends on this site see the situation?

Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Jan 2005)

I think Colin Powell was a great and brilliant man indeed.  How disgusting that he gets a pat on the head by the US media, with the implied suffix "for a black man."  They need to get past all that.  We all do, really.  Kim Campbell was a shitty Prime Minister, but no one said "because she was a woman."


----------



## LF(CMO) (18 Jan 2005)

Canada, Australia, and African countries hardly equate to the US in terms of power and influence.   The UK ,of course, had a woman PM and a very good one.   She almost single handedly changed the disastrous course of western economies.   President Regan took his lead from her.   She could easily be the 'statesperson' of the latter half of the 20th Cen.

 As far as the 'conservative religious based agenda', I given that considerable thought.   It seems its roots go back to the Civil War in England etc.   The 'American Revolution' was really not very revolutionary.   It was just a rekindling of the CW of 100 yrs previous that the New Englanders had never reconciled themselves to living under a monarchy.   They wanted a republic, 'one nation under God' and were just waiting for an opportunity to bring it to the for.   Their Congregational Church's told them that Gov works best from the bottom up not the top down.

 Another point of interest, I wonder how many US presidents trace their ancestry back to those first New Englanders?   I think most of them.   I know Bush and Clinton do,   They are both decent from New Englander's and royalty.   John Kerry's ancestors married into the Boston 'blue bloods' about the turn of the 19th Cen.   He and the Bush's are distant cousins.

 A number of years ago I saw a show on the history channel depicting the life of Oliver Cromwell.   When they were going into battle one of their banners read, "In God we trust".


----------



## pbi (20 Jan 2005)

> Canada, Australia, and African countries hardly equate to the US in terms of power and influence



Ok, but what is the connection between that statement and the difficulty the US historically appears to have had with the idea of either a visible minority or a woman as head of state/head of govt?



> The 'American Revolution' was really not very revolutionary.



I tend to agree with this, and I suggest that it wasn't really inevitable that things turned out the way they did. What if Pitt, King George, etc had worked a bit harder to understand the Englishmen living in the Thirteen Colonies, and had granted them progressively more independence (or granted it totally, but on friendly terms, as the "White Dominions" received in 1931). What if instead of sending over more troops and imposing stupider restrictions, Parliament had sent over America's own version of Lord Durham? It is interesting to speculate how the world might have evolved if all of North America had remained as a united entity, from the Rio Grande to the the Arctic, rather than fragmenting into two portions that were never (and to a certain extent, still are not...) really 100% happy with each other. (Just say "Softwood/Beef Cattle" to a Canadian or "Canada and Iraq" to an American and see what I mean). At least the US would have real beer.... Cheers.


----------



## JasonH (20 Jan 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I think Colin Powell was a great and brilliant man indeed.  How disgusting that he gets a pat on the head by the US media, with the implied suffix "for a black man."  They need to get past all that.  We all do, really.  Kim Campbell was a shitty Prime Minister, but no one said "because she was a woman."



Couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2005)

*Birmingham's New Legacy*
How the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and the murder of Denise McNair led to our new secretary of State.
by Scott Johnson
01/31/2005 12:00:00 AM


WHEN MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. brought his campaign against segregation to Bull Connor's Birmingham, he laid siege to the bastion of Jim Crow. Birmingham was among the most segregated cities in the country at the time; King called it a city whose fathers had apparently never heard of Abraham Lincoln. Birmingham had also been the site of a horrific series of bombings of black churches and homes. In April 1963 King answered the call to bring his cause to the city. When King landed in jail on Good Friday for violating an injunction prohibiting demonstrations, he used the time to meditate on the counsel of prudence with which Birmingham's white ministers had greeted his campaign. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" was the result.

Reading the letter 40 years later is a humbling experience. Perhaps most striking is King's seething anger over the indignities of segregation:

    I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when . . . you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your 6-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children . . .

As it happens, Birmingham's Condoleezza Rice was 8-years-old when King wrote those words in the Birmingham jail. Her confirmation as United States secretary of State this past week closed a loop, even if no one seemed to notice.

Eight days after that Good Friday in 1963, King was released from jail. On May 10 he announced a historic desegregation agreement with Birmingham's business community. On the strength of his victory in Birmingham he led the March on Washington on August 28 and gave his great "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Only 18 days later, however, amid the continuing tumult over what King called Birmingham's "partial and grudging compliance" with the settlement terms he had secured, Birmingham was the scene of a bitter sequel to the events of that spring.

On September 15, 1963, Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was holding its annual Youth Day when a bomb exploded in the basement and killed four girls who had slipped out of Bible class early to lead the adult services later that morning. Among the four dead was Denise McNair. Had she lived, Denise McNair would be 53 today.

IN NUMEROUS FORMAL SPEECHES she gave and informal remarks she made while holding the position of National Security Advisor, Rice recalled her ties to Birmingham and to her "friend and playmate" Denise McNair. In the Vanderbilt University commencement speech she gave on May 17, 2004, for example, Rice said:

    _I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, before the Civil Rights movement--a place that was once described, with no exaggeration, as the most thoroughly segregated city in the country. I know what it means to hold dreams and aspirations when half your neighbors think you are incapable of, or uninterested in, anything better.

    I know what it's like to live with segregation in an atmosphere of hostility, and contempt, and cold stares, and the ever-present threat of violence, a threat that sometimes erupted into the real thing.

    I remembered the bombing of that Sunday school at 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963. I did not see it happen, but I heard it happen and I felt it happen, just a few blocks away at my father's church. It is a sound that I will never forget, that will forever reverberate in my ears. That bomb took the lives of four young girls, including my friend and playmate Denise McNair. The crime was calculated, not random. It was meant to suck the hope out of young lives, bury their aspirations, and ensure that old fears would be propelled forward into the next generation. 
_
Rice added that "those fears were not propelled forward. Those terrorists failed."

The bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church had been the handiwork of former members of the Ku Klux Klan--brothers under the hood to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle and current Democratic United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd of course opposed Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State last week. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Byrd and 11 other Democratic senators in opposing Rice's confirmation was Democratic senator Mark Dayton who is, oddly enough, the occupant of Hubert Humphrey's seat in the Senate. History takes strange turns and politics makes strange bedfellows.

In ascending to the first among cabinet offices Rice becomes the first cabinet officer in the line of presidential succession. Rice's ascent represents fulfillment of a "promise" that Martin Luther King offered in the form of his "dream" in the summer of 1963. The promise traced its roots back to the Emancipation Proclamation and, Lincoln and King both insisted, to the Declaration of Independence. In 1864 Lincoln wrote in response to prominent Democrats who urged him to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation: "The promise, being made, must be kept." The fulfillment of the promise represented by Rice's ascent is one in which all Americans can rightfully take pride.

Scott Johnson is a contributor to the blog Power Line and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Glorified Ape (2 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This woman could also be the next President of the United States



I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US.


----------



## sigpig (2 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US.



I agree whole heartedly. The best Rice could hope for would be as the Vice-Presidential candidate as the republicans tried to gain more of the black vote. But don't forget this is the republican party we are talking about. And though no one may say it publically, I think a lot of republican voters would have a hard time with a black and/or female on the big ticket. I think we are more likely to see an hispanic pres/vice-pres before a black one, especially as the demographics keep changing. 

The racism that runs through US society can be quite startling to a Canadian moving here. And it's not just white on black. Cubans put down other hispanics, American blacks put down Caribbean blacks, and my son has been on the receiving end of a lot of slurs and comments from black kids. I don't know how they are ever going to get rid of it all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2005)

QUOTE,
_I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US._

..whats the matter Ape, got tired of trolling in the political forum so now you are trying here?
I know I'm going to regret this but can you explain what you mean by that?.......and not just heresay either.
Enlighten us with your worldly experiences with the US of A.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2005)

Dr Rice's biography:  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html


> Biography of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
> Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
> 
> In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
> ...



see also:

www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/rice.html

www.rice2008.com/

Are there any other well known, high profile potential candidates with such a wide range of experience? Most Democratic contenders I have heard of seem to be lifetime politicians, although I would like to be surprised. Dr Rice has some very impressive credentials, and I think if she decides to run any challengers from the Democrats or the Republicans is going to have a rough ride indeed.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Feb 2005)

> I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US.



Only in Canada would it be considered "progressive" to have a crappy woman Prime Minister years before your neighbor elected a competent one     :

Oh - and some of you "holier than thou" types - I don't see much difference between stereotyping based on nationality than on gender, skin colour, or religion.....


----------



## clasper (2 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US.



I lived in Louisiana from 2001-2003, waaaaay down the bayou, where obvious racism still exists.  The rednecks around absolutely loved Condi, because of her strong conservative views, and her straightforward approach (as opposed to the litany of corrupt politicians that Louisiana has endured over the years).  I think she has a better shot at being the first woman president than Ms. Clinton does.

Has there been a precedent of a Secretary of State moving on to the presidency?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2005)

Well there ya go Ape, first-hand knowledge and experience...........and you?

...and just to show how full of me I am, I'm going to quote myself,...
My take on those who blame America for EVERYTHING,...
_........because there is ALWAYS gonna be teenage and early twenty-year old alpha males in this world who just can't deal with the fact that someone else on the next block is bigger and tougher, and since I can't get the girl by standing tall, I will slither and slice and back-stab them so that just maybe someday I can shed this horrible case of penis envy that I'm burdoned with._


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2005)

If I remember the US government structure correctly, after the VP, the first cabinet officer in line for the presidency is the Secretary of State, which means that Collin Powell was the number three man in the US Administration, and Dr Rice is now third in line of succession.


----------



## clasper (3 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If I remember the US government structure correctly, after the VP, the first cabinet officer in line for the presidency is the Secretary of State, which means that Collin Powell was the number three man in the US Administration, and Dr Rice is now third in line of succession.



Not quite.  In the line of succession after the VP comes Speaker of the House of Representatives, then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then Secretary of State (which is the first cabinet officer in line, but 4th, not 3rd).
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.html

And to answer my own question, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams both served as Secretary of State before becoming president, but I was interested in a more modern example.  There is a tradition in American politics of senators or governors ignoring many of their duties for a year to make a run at the presidency, but I don't think Rice will have that luxury.  Maybe 2012 would be more realistic for her?


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Feb 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> I agree whole heartedly. The best Rice could hope for would be as the Vice-Presidential candidate as the republicans tried to gain more of the black vote. But don't forget this is the republican party we are talking about. And though no one may say it publically, I think a lot of republican voters would have a hard time with a black and/or female on the big ticket. I think we are more likely to see an hispanic pres/vice-pres before a black one, especially as the demographics keep changing.
> 
> The racism that runs through US society can be quite startling to a Canadian moving here. And it's not just white on black. Cubans put down other hispanics, American blacks put down Caribbean blacks, and my son has been on the receiving end of a lot of slurs and comments from black kids. I don't know how they are ever going to get rid of it all.






			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> QUOTE,
> _I think you're being a bit unrealistic. It's going to be a loooooong time before a black female is president of the US. Or any woman or minority for that matter. I mean c'mon - it's the US._
> 
> ..whats the matter Ape, got tired of trolling in the political forum so now you are trying here?
> ...



Well, first off - this is the political forum.   

Secondly, for experience with the US, see Sigpig's post (above). 

Thirdly, regarding the fallacy of hasty generalization (read: generalizing based on personal experience), see: http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_anecdotal.htm





			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Only in Canada would it be considered "progressive" to have a crappy woman Prime Minister years before your neighbor elected a competent one     :
> 
> Oh - and some of you "holier than thou" types - I don't see much difference between stereotyping based on nationality than on gender, skin colour, or religion.....



I'm not stereotyping the US based on their nationality, I'm making my comment based on the history of their politics. 



> A record number of 77 women serve in the 108th Congress: 63 in the House (one
> more than the record number of 62 in the107th Congress), and 14 in the Senate. The 14
> female Senators are a new record. Of the 63 women in the House, 42 are Democrats,
> including three Delegates, and 21 are Republicans. In the Senate, nine women are
> ...



There are 13 black females in the entirety of the house and senate. The majority of minority and female members are democrat. US presidential voting habits are becoming increasingly republican. Thus the likelihood of a democrat (best bet for females and minorities) being elected president is less than a republican. The likelihood of a female minority republican being elected president are pretty slim given A) the republicans field far fewer of them and that republicans are less likely to vote for minorities, B) given the importance of the presidential election, the republicans are pretty unlikely to take the substantial chance of fielding a female minority as their candidate. 

There has never been, to my knowledge, a female or minority speaker, let alone both. There has never been a female or minority vice president, let alone both. The closest that a female or minority has come to the presidency is a cabinet appointment, which doesn't rely on a popular election for selection. 




			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well there ya go Ape, first-hand knowledge and experience...........and you?
> 
> ...and just to show how full of me I am, I'm going to quote myself,...
> My take on those who blame America for EVERYTHING,...
> _........because there is ALWAYS gonna be teenage and early twenty-year old alpha males in this world who just can't deal with the fact that someone else on the next block is bigger and tougher, and since I can't get the girl by standing tall, I will slither and slice and back-stab them so that just maybe someday I can shed this horrible case of penis envy that I'm burdoned with._



Perhaps you'd like to point out where I blamed America for everything? Or maybe you wanted to quote what you seem to believe is a witty or insightful comment you made at some point in the past. Well, you've done it. Do you feel better now?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Feb 2005)

Alright Ape, for you, I'll bite,

Well, first off - this is the political forum.  .....as a future leader of men[maybe] you should pay more attention to detail, this was in current affairs and news but got switched to "political"...little things matter in front of the troopies, oh yea, you haven't been there yet.

Secondly, for experience with the US, see Sigpig's post (above).  .......I take everything Sigpig has to say with a large grain of salt, every post he makes is US bashing and yet he continues to live in the nice Florida weather, for more than 6 years? Can you say hypocrite?...and as for his racism post maybe he needs to fly up to one of our larger cities and actually pay attention to the street a little, its just as bad.

Thirdly, regarding the fallacy of hasty generalization (read: generalizing based on personal experience), see: http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_anecdotal.htm

........so you have no problem insinuating that Ms. Rice is just a token who followed another token?...thats pathetic.


Perhaps you'd like to point out where I blamed America for everything? Or maybe you wanted to quote what you seem to believe is a witty or insightful comment you made at some point in the past. Well, you've done it. Do you feel better now?

...yes I do, but I knew your ilk wouldn't like it as it catches ya right between the eyes, I'm sure.
..and as for the blame thing, here are your posts, reread them and count,

http://army.ca/forums/members/5214;sa=showPosts

and lastly, since you brought up "witty and insightful" comments, you don't seem to have a problem throwing what you think is one out,...
                                           I mean c'mon - it's the US.  

..oh, you meant " I mean c'mon - it's the US." in a good way?...... :


----------



## sigpig (6 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I take everything Sigpig has to say with a large grain of salt, every post he makes is US bashing and yet he continues to live in the nice Florida weather, for more than 6 years? Can you say hypocrite?...and as for his racism post maybe he needs to fly up to one of our larger cities and actually pay attention to the street a little, its just as bad.



I didn't know that I was the only poster here who has a particular bias or view of things. I think I've been pretty up front about my political leanings every chance I get. 

As far as US bashing, guilty. I've tried to let Canadians on this site know about my experiences and observations after living in the US for six years. It is quite different than reading about things on the news. And some on this site seem to look at the US through rose coloured glasses because the American people support a large military and have different views on social issues. My glasses are a bit darker.

Hypocrite? Any more than the members of this site who continue to bash the majority of Canadians who don't want a large military and support the existing social policies? If Canada is such a socialist, pacifist hell hole then get out!!  

I haven't been to a large Canadian city in a while so I don't know about their streets. I have always been quite well read when it comes to the news and current events and racism doesn't appear to be anywhere near the issue in Canada that it is here. I'm not talking about the streets of large cities here, I'm talking about my suburban neighbourhood and many other places.

And it was down to 55F when I went to get the paper this morning. Oh, the horror. That's too damn cold. So much for nice Florida weather. Now that we've finally got our green cards - tomorrow actually, I might never get the wife out of here. She hates the cold - wimpiest Canadian you ever saw  ;D

So I guess I'll stay here, if that's all right with you, and continue to bring a large salt lick to my desk whenever I log in to check out the site.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

It is interesting, if somewhat sad, to see that there seems to be no consideration of Dr Rice's substantial qualifications to do the job, just nattering about what we "think" the Republicans or American people think and feel.

As for thinking about the Republicans, they have demonstrated a high degree of comfort in exploring new territory. Tax reform, social security reform, medicare/medicade reform (in favor of Health Savings Accounts) and Tort reform have always been considered topics which would destroy any candidate or party which advocated them, President Bush campaigned on them as his domestic platform and won. OIF, pre-emption and "tiger teaming" with coallitions of the willing for specific tasks have been foreign policy planks which, despite the howls of outrage, have demonstrated results. Perhaps the last Republican administration which has made so many sweeping changes was the Lincoln administration, which was characterised than as the "Radical Republicans".

As for the here and now, if Dr Rice is not suitable because of "attitudes" or "beliefs" amongst the voters, please name another candidate (Democratic or Republican) who is not a career politician and can boast of an equally impressive resume?


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Alright Ape, for you, I'll bite,
> 
> Well, first off - this is the political forum.   .....as a future leader of men[maybe] you should pay more attention to detail, this was in current affairs and news but got switched to "political"...little things matter in front of the troopies, oh yea, you haven't been there yet.



I guess it depends on when the thread was moved from CA. Before my post and you're wrong, after my post and I'm wrong. Regardless, I don't see it as having a great deal of importance for command potential.



> Secondly, for experience with the US, see Sigpig's post (above).  .......I take everything Sigpig has to say with a large grain of salt, every post he makes is US bashing and yet he continues to live in the nice Florida weather, for more than 6 years? Can you say hypocrite?...and as for his racism post maybe he needs to fly up to one of our larger cities and actually pay attention to the street a little, its just as bad.



 Let me get this straight - you value irrelevant personal experience (can't generalize from it, can you?) in an argument on electoral politics, then dismiss that personal experience when it doesn't fit your view of things? You valued the other guy's experience because it fit what you wanted to believe but since Sigpig's doesn't, you dismiss him as a US basher. Little things matter, right? Like consistency? 



> Thirdly, regarding the fallacy of hasty generalization (read: generalizing based on personal experience), see: http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_anecdotal.htm
> 
> ........so you have no problem insinuating that Ms. Rice is just a token who followed another token?...thats pathetic.



I didn't say she was a token, I said she was an exception to the trend, outside the bell curve - which she is. Take that how you want to; as it's a reflection of fact, I don't particularly care what you deem it to be. 



> Perhaps you'd like to point out where I blamed America for everything? Or maybe you wanted to quote what you seem to believe is a witty or insightful comment you made at some point in the past. Well, you've done it. Do you feel better now?
> 
> ...yes I do, but I knew your ilk wouldn't like it as it catches ya right between the eyes, I'm sure.
> ..and as for the blame thing, here are your posts, reread them and count,
> ...



I didn't like or not like it - it doesn't apply and thus I can't comment on its accuracy or inaccuracy. 

I'm concerned by your classification of anything critical of the US as "bashing", though, since it really detracts from the discussion. 

If you'd read the posts you advise me to (and I did), you'd find I addressed the issue of "US bashing" and Ameriphilia by taking neither side and pointing out both ignore important points supportive and critical of the US. I'm still waiting for you to point to where I blamed the US for _everything_. 



> and lastly, since you brought up "witty and insightful" comments, you don't seem to have a problem throwing what you think is one out,...
> I mean c'mon - it's the US.
> 
> ..oh, you meant " I mean c'mon - it's the US." in a good way?...... :



No, it was meant to portray the absurdity of such a notion. Like saying "I mean c'mon - it's Quebec" in response to a proposal that a Texan could be premier. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for the here and now, if Dr Rice is not suitable because of "attitudes" or "beliefs" amongst the voters, please name another candidate (Democratic or Republican) who is not a career politician and can boast of an equally impressive resume?



I think we haven't discussed Rice's qualifications because anyone who's familiar with them knows they're more than sufficient. I don't like Rice's politics and I hope she's never elected but I think she's more than qualified for the presidency. 

As for another candidate filling the criteria you specified, I think Colin Powell would make a good president, assuming you could get him elected.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Feb 2005)

Our little arguement is taken this off-topic but I just want to clarify something.
QUOTE,
_ Let me get this straight - you value irrelevant personal experience (can't generalize from it, can you?) in an argument on electoral politics, then dismiss that personal experience when it doesn't fit your view of things? You valued the other guy's experience because it fit what you wanted to believe but since Sigpig's doesn't, you dismiss him as a US basher. Little things matter, right? Like consistency_? 

...the difference being is I went through Clasper's posts and found out his views go both ways on the US, ,..now go through SigPigs posts and find ONE good thing[besides the weather] that he has to say.

Now if post after post all I did was insult , oh say,.....OCDT's, I believe it wouldn't take long before you ran with my grain of salt also.


----------



## sigpig (6 Feb 2005)

After going back through my posts I guess you are right about my not saying anything positive about the US. Of course, considering I've only talked about Bush on the Micheal Moore thread and the health care system, so what? I don't like Bush and I don't like the US healthcare system. I do like the US government system of checks and balances that prevents the dictatorship of the PM and cabinet that can happen in a Canadian majority government. I do like paying less payroll taxes and the highway system is much better down here. But I haven't seen any threads about those topics here. 

I realized his is the second time you've asked why I'm living in the US. Well, it's none of your business. My family and I will live wherever we please. And as long as I live in a democracy I'll criticize the government of the day and any of their policies I feel like. 

What was this topic about before people started telling me where I should and shouldn't be living?


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Our little arguement is taken this off-topic but I just want to clarify something.
> QUOTE,
> _ Let me get this straight - you value irrelevant personal experience (can't generalize from it, can you?) in an argument on electoral politics, then dismiss that personal experience when it doesn't fit your view of things? You valued the other guy's experience because it fit what you wanted to believe but since Sigpig's doesn't, you dismiss him as a US basher. Little things matter, right? Like consistency_?
> 
> ...



Point clarified... back to the discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

ANN ALTHOUSE wants to see Russ Feingold run against Condi Rice in 2008.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/02/i-think-you-ought-to-run-for-president.html

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/02/my-other-08-presidential-pick.html

I don't really care where you live or why (although I will freely admit I have been giving serious consideration to moving to the US in my post military existence since it seems to mesh with some developing plans of my own...), but I _am_ interested in how you would react to seeing Dr Rice on the ballot, or as President. For that matter, I am also interested to hear from our American members who else is considered to be a strong contender for 2008?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2005)

A sensible analysis of the potential weakness of Dr Rice as a presidential candidate:



> Beware the Condi bandwagon
> February 15th, 2005
> 
> I am as pleased as anyone with Condoleezza Rice's initial performance as Secretary of State.  She's a smart, articulate, passionate defender of America and George W. Bush's foreign policy vision.  But all the excited talk about â Å“Condi for Presidentâ ? is wildly premature, and even dangerous to the conservative cause.  For all her virtues and strengths, and she has many, Rice simply is not presidential material.  This is not a criticism.  Plenty of highly accomplished, successful people are not made out to be President.  Rice is an outstanding cabinet official and a shining star in the Republican firmament.  But she lacks the background and experience to be a credible, let alone winning, candidate for the White House in 2008.  Critically, between now and then, Republicans need to find someone to fill Dubya's big shoes.  The time and energy spent daydreaming about a Condi candidacy would be better spent identifying viable national candidates and building up their political capital for the hard fight to come against Hillary, Kerry, and the Democrats.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2005)

2008 is a long way off but if its a Hillary vs Condi matchup it may be a tossup. I think Condi could win.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2005)

I have no doubt that Dr Rice is a far more impressive candidate than Sen Clinton; but as the article points out, there are areas of deficiency which Dr Rice would need to correct to succeed on the political level.


----------



## clasper (21 Feb 2005)

> Only two elected Presidents since 1900, Harding and Kennedy, made their names as Senators, and Kennedy is another exceptional case.



Then why do both parties keep putting these candidates out there (Kerry, Dole, and Mondale in the last 20 years)?

Another interpretation of this thread's title: Does Barack Obama save his party from left-wing lunacy and return the Democrats to an inclusive party of the center?  For many of the reasons mentioned in Majoor's article, Obama has a much better chance of being on the ticket in 2008 than Rice does.


----------



## pbi (25 Feb 2005)

> Born and raised in Alabama, educated in Colorado, living for many years in northern California (hardly a Republican stronghold), and now working in Washington, D.C., she is a peripatetic modern professional.  This may have been good for her career, but it is terrible for politics.



I find this a very interesting statement, when viewed through the lens of Canadian political culture, which sees the ability to span the gaps of regionalism as a political plus at the Federal level. How could this background be a political impediment for Dr Rice? It seems to me that it would be more likely to give her a broad understanding of the US, rather than one particular narrow regional focus. Is this not seen as a good thing?

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2005)

I believe the implication is she hasn't "been around" in any place long enough to build the political network required to launch a successful political run for the White House. 

On the other hand, she knows enough very influential people across the US (top level support); and if enough of these "Draft Rice" groups get together, a broad "populist" base of support could be created as well. This would be a very different sort of proposition than a potential run by Senator Clinton, a broad Internet based populist campaign teamed with a very powerful Republican Party machine, verses a more narrowly focused Democratic Party machine (Led by Howard Dean at present) which has access to "elite" support by the MSM and access to huge amounts of money through people like George Soros and Hollywood actors.

We have lots of time for this to play out.


----------



## Zipper (27 Feb 2005)

Seems our RCA friends have a chip on their collective shoulders.

I agree. The US is not likely to see a Negro or Woman on the big ticket anytime soon. I can hope that they prove me wrong, but I don't see it.

Yes Rice has a lot of experience. And yes, they treated Powell horribly. The amount of racism in the States is quite profound. Not as bad as in the past, and slowly getting better. But just take a ride through some of the SE states (Not to mention some of the larger cities.) and you'll still see the marked differences. The fact that they are even allowed to still fly that stupid confederate flag screams out insult to a whole segment of society. Try flying the swastika and see what happens.

The number of people of minority coming up in the eyes of the US people (Hillery, Will Smith, Rice, Powell, that senator from Illinois) is a good sign that things are a changing.


----------



## canadianblue (1 Mar 2005)

> Hypocrite? Any more than the members of this site who continue to bash the majority of Canadians who don't want a large military and support the existing social policies? If Canada is such a socialist, pacifist heck hole then get out!!



How???

But seriously, I was looking into the American Military, and in order to be considered a green card is required. To the best of my knowledge it is extremely hard to get a green card, and an American Citizenship right. You would have to be sponsored by an employer, or invest 1,000,000 dollars into the US, or get married to an American. Now I cannot do any of those. If you have any other suggestiongs I'd love to hear them.

The majority of Canadian's have that view due to ignorance. I know that in my home province most people respect members of the armed forces, and would love to see more money pumped into the Canadian Armed Forces. Perhaps we should kick this province out of Canada as well.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

The absolute best way to get a Green Card (my ultimate "Ace in the Hole") is to have a family member sponsor you. Otherwise, you are stuck with the options you mentioned.

Check with your nearest US consoulate for further information or details about immigration or joining the US military, if that is really your goal.


----------



## Andyboy (3 Mar 2005)

Uh Zipper did you say Will Smith? Like the Fresh Prince? Just wondering what you meant.


----------



## Zipper (3 Mar 2005)

Hee hee  ;D

Wondered if someone would catch that.

Yep, I said it. He has actually said recently that he may enter politics in the future. Crazier then Arnold? I think not.


----------



## Andyboy (3 Mar 2005)

I guess it's no crazier than _anyone_ getting in to politics. I still don't see how he has "come up in the eyes of US people" as you say.


----------



## Zipper (3 Mar 2005)

Easy. He is front and center as far as publicity. He's popular with a large segment of their society. And he has charm and presence (something Rice has little of), and could talk his way out of almost anything.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2005)

Mr Smith is a Hollywood actor, so however much "personal" charm and presence he may have, I would guess the Will Smith you see on TV is mostly contrived by his publicist to give him max exposure and the choice of roles in movie projects. What he actually thinks about topics like Social Security reform, Syria, or alternative energy is a mystery to you, me and the general public.

Dr Rice comes across as a peron with a great deal of presence, watching her face down the Democratic "Rat Pack" of senators during her confirmation hearing (Full, coherent and detailed replies, quoting facts and figures_ without notes_) was one of the more impressive "live fire" demonstrations I have seen (one of the other ones was Gen Lewis Macenzie casually crushing hostile lawyers during the Somalia Inquiry).

I am giving serious consideration to running for Mayor in my home town of London, given the appaling performance of the City Council and Mayor over the last two years, mostly because I want to say the things that need saying. I suspect I will come across as charismatic as an enraged pit bull, but as a home owner who has absorbed a 13% cumulative property tax hike in two years and is being told to expect another 9% next year, I've got _motivation_.


----------



## Zipper (4 Mar 2005)

I sure you will be. Property taxes anywhere are not fun. I'm not sure of the percentage, but I think Edmonton is not far behind in how the city council likes to grab that money from our pockets. But then again our roads suck, lousy bus service, etc.

No comment on whether Mr. Smith (hee hee) is even good for the job. Just that he has stated he may do so one day.

But whatever. Whoever runs down there is of no concern to me. Even though for a republican, I respected Powell a great deal.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Mar 2005)

> Seems our RCA friends have a chip on their collective shoulders



I have lived in the United States for almost 15 years. On a practical level, the US had offered far more opportunities to me, both in rural Maine, and Phoenix (now the 5th largest city in the US). On the other hand, I have not yet taken my US Citizenship because philisophically, I have a hard time letting go of my Canadian Citizenship. I am proud of my heritage. I live here mostly because of some very severe health issues, with my wife.

I grow very weary of all of the "experts" on this board that pontificate about life in the US, based only on what they have read on the internet, or heard on the news. If our American members were making these broad, matter-of-fact statements about Canada, based on the same inputs - most of you would be all over them for it. I have the same "chip" when I partake of discussions with anti-hunters who have never been in the woods, or when my wife advises me on home improvement jobs....


----------



## TCBF (6 Mar 2005)

A gold mine!  Is this thread ever a hoot!  OK..

1. Al: run for mayor, and throw the damn tea into the harbour!

2. Sigpig: Am I to understand that a retired Strat is living in FLORIDA?  Think I might just send out 600 emails when I get to work on Monday.  Don't bother seeding your lawn just yet.  You might get a severe case of squaters next month.

3.  Pride and predjudice:  Intollerance is relative. Think we will ever see a Griz hunting, gun owning, Calgary oilman as PM?  Nope.  Think Canadians would vote for a Jewish PM?  No way of finding out: the Libs would say "He ain't Quebecable!" and be out of the leadership race on the first ballot.  I would have loved to have had Barney Danson as PM (so would most of you guys in the Queens Own), but his party wouldn't allow such a thing.  

We have our own problems in Canada., we should be a little less smug in our opinions of others.

Tom


----------



## Acorn (7 Mar 2005)

I think many of you would be surprised how deep bigotry and racism runs in the US. It's often difficult to see unless you experience it. Are you aware that (at least until recently, not sure if it's still so) in several NE US states one had to declare race for school registration? One or another - bi-racial was not an acceptable answer. That's not the deep south, that's Michigan.

Don't wear a flag on your lapel? Must be a commie or something. Don't go to church? Godless!

Anyway, you have to live it and see it to get the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like Americans (I married one). I think Colin Powell would be a better President than Condi Rice though (hell, either is better than any of the other offerings I've seen) but he isn't aggressive enough for the neo-cons. Maybe it's because so many of the latter haven't had to personally suffer the effects of war and Powell has. That, however is a digression.

Unfortunately, I don't think US politics has reached the point where it can accept either at this point, and I don't see it changing in time for the next election. Maybe the one after that.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2005)

Acorn, I agree with what you say (I've got family connections as well).

I can remember checking into a hotel in the US with my Father.   A young black couple was infront of us and was told that unless they supplied a credit card that they would not be able to get a room.   Dejected, the couple left to continue searching for a place to stay.   When we came up, my Father paid cash and was never once asked about supplying a credit card.

Does this mean that Americans are inherently racist?   Of course not.   It did, however, prove to me that being an ignorant bigot isn't confined to goof-balls running around with white sheets on.

I guarantee you that things like this will happen in Canada from time to time - although I am willing to bet not as frequently; I remember one political commentary noting that while American political discord revolves around Race, Canadian discord revolves around Region.   I think there is a bit of truth to this....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (8 Mar 2005)

What amazes me is the free pass given by the 'liberal' media to the likes of Robert "Sheets" Byrd ... I suspect that the real problem is avoiding confronting racism when it is inconvenient ... I don't suppose the reluctance to address his past (including his voting record) have anything to do with his affliation with the Donkey party ... it's the Republinazis that are a bunch of racists, right?

Many schools and institutions in Canada and the US still ask for racial heritage in order to "encourage diversity" or to "help" those that are "disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour," etc. (the last one is from our Constitution): we have been told to understand that somehow the idea that someone might be disadvantaged because of their ethnic origin is _not_ racist in today's P.C. society.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2005)

It seems the good Dr has publicly forsworn running for president in 2008.

http://powerlineblog.com/



> *Easy Come, Easy Go*
> 
> Condoleezza Rice was on Meet the Press this morning, and Tim Russert noted the internet boomlet in support of her running for President. He pressed Rice on her intentions, and she repeated, about as definitively as possible, that she "will not run for president of the United States". So it's goodbye, I suppose, to americansforrice.com, et al. Maybe there's a market for recycled bumper stickers.
> 
> Rice's disavowal of Presidential ambitions probably means that she intends to stay on as Secretary of State through President Bush's second term, which wouldn't be possible if she were to begin a full-time Presidential campaign next year. It's noteworthy, though, that she didn't say anything about not wanting to be Vice-President. So maybe there's an outside chance that her prediction--"I don't think I will be president of the United States ever"--might not prove to be true.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2005)

Dr Rice is back in the news (a bit) with a new and very unscientific poll suggesting she is by far the first choice of Republican voters. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000861.html

The comments alone are priceless.  My favorite:



> "Condi's main appeal to me is the great pleasure I would derive night after night listening to the likes of Donna Brazile explain why she, Condi, is neither Black nor a woman!"
> 
> Wow, another four years of leftist rage and insanity. Sign me up! Go Condi!


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2005)

The movement to draft a qualified candidate continues in the United States (Perhaps a double header could be arranged: Dr Rice and Dr Ignatieff meeting at a summit as respective leaders of their nations?)



> *Bringing Back the Draft*
> â Å“Who the hellâ ? are all these Condi Rice people?
> 
> Those embittered 2004 John Kerry supporters had it right: A movement is afoot to bring back the draft. Only it's a different draft than the one they were fixated on. The comeback has to do with luring reluctant presidential candidates into the 2008 horserace.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2005)

Another case of peering into the future:

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/morris200510130831.asp

What do the Americans on this board think of this analysis? Is Senator Clinton such a polarizing figure, and is Dr Rice so compelling that she will carry the vote the way these people believe?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2006)

More tea leafs from the First Lady, who may be hinting Dr Rice should/will run after all. The comments in this blog are to die fror; the "liberal" posters are accusing the Republicans of being racist and sexist on a Conservative/Republican board which seems to be fully supportive of Dr Rice!

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/01/she-says-she-definitely-is-not-running.html



> "She says she definitely is not running. I'd love to see her run, she's terrific."
> Ooh! Laura Bush said that about Condoleezza Rice. So, then, Condi's running! Right?
> 
> IN THE COMMENTS: A pseudonymous Condi hater makes a racist slur, and after I delete it, makes it again, in the middle of the night, so that I don't see it to delete it for a few hours. When I do delete it, I write:
> ...



If Dick Cheney steps down for health reasons and Dr Rice is appointed VP (is this possible in American law?) as suggested by some posters, who would be her running mate in '08?


----------



## clasper (17 Jan 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If Dick Cheney steps down for health reasons and Dr Rice is appointed VP (is this possible in American law?) as suggested by some posters, who would be her running mate in '08?



An appointed VP must be confirmed by Congress, but I can't see that as anything other than a rubber stamp in this case.  As for possible running mates, the only name that's out there as a presidential contender for the Republicans at the moment is McCain.  A Rice-McCain ticket (or for that matter, a McCain-Rice ticket) would draw a huge number of voters from both sides of the aisle.  The neo-cons wouldn't be terribly happy, but that would be offset by the large number of traditional Democrat-voters who are just looking for some common sense leadership.  The neo-cons couldn't hammer on them too hard anyway, since Rice is a bit of a hawk, and McCain has the war hero thing going for him (Hanoi Hilton Veterans for Truth... hmmm... maybe not).  The Republican party is pretty polarized over McCain, but in a national election, I think the electorate would be far less polarized than the last couple of elections (unless of course Hillary is running for the Dems- but that's a different story).  The big question for me (and this is all just speculation) is: can they work together?  McCain isn't too fond of Bush (and vice versa), but what is his relationship with her like?

If Rice wasn't looking for a foil to compliment her deficiencies, and instead is looking for a stunt double as a running mate (the Clinton-Gore theory of tickets), then I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with a realistic guess.  She may end up taking advice from Bush père and plucking some relative unknown to run with her.  Hopefully she would come up with someone a little better suited than Dan Quayle, but I think she would need someone with a strong history of winning elections (since she hasn't won any) to join her.

It's going to be interesting watching the fallout from the mid-term elections.  The Democrats believe they have some traction and the Republicans are on the ropes- whether that translates into victories or not remains to be seen, but one side is going to be pretty disappointed come November.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2006)

I find this topic very interesting since Dr Rice isn't a professional politician, and has the real world experience to handle a job like President of the United States. While I don't know Dr Rice except by reputation, the idea she would pick or allow herself to be saddled by a "stunt double" VP seems fairly absurd. 

She has not been very forthcoming about her views on domestic issues (although in fairness, this isn't part of her ambit as National Security Adviser or Secretary of State), so a "domestic" VP would probably be a an asset should she run. (In the case of a McCain/Rice ticket she would be the foreign affairs VP). American members of the board are probably better informed on this.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Jan 2006)

FWIW, McCain has stated more than once in recent months that he ahs no interest in running as a VP for anybody...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2009)

Dr Rice is back in the news as an attractive chooice for the GOP in 2012. If she really is interested, I beleive she would have to be elected to Congress in 2010 to become eligable for the Presidency.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/news/economy/condoleezza_rice_gop.fortune/



> *Condi: The should-be face of the GOP*
> She's smart. She's experienced. She's worldly. Republican strategists worried about their party's future should take heed.
> 
> Rarely has D.C. wielded so much power over business, and never have so many women been calling the shots. We've ranked the 10 with the most impact excluding just one -- Michelle Obama -- who exercises her own brand of influence.
> ...


----------

