Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
Why would he be a "male knockoff?" does this mean that every white mail candidate that would run after a Hillary Clinton white house win would be a "male knockoff?"
WI Condoleeza Rice elected POTUS?
- Thread starter RogueBeaver
- Start date
Why would he be a "male knockoff?" does this mean that every white mail candidate that would run after a Hillary Clinton white house win would be a "male knockoff?"
You need a personality-based POD, because beyond a bit of speculation in 2005, and again in 2008 during McCain's veep picks, Rice has never expressed even the slightest interest in running for any elected office. She's a brilliant academic and policy wonk, not a politician, and I've never seen much evidence she has the slightest interest in domestic policy.
I remember vaguely that she was a foreign policy adviser to Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential campaign. By this point, though, her very hawkish views were set. But if Hart wins the nomination but loses the general election, she may gain a lot of exposure. Neoconservatives weren't as unwelcome in the Democratic Party of the 1980s as they are now -- think Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the young Joe Lieberman, and even Scoop Jackson only died in 1983. So if Hart wins the nomination in 1984 Rice could be regarded as a Democratic foreign policy guru, surreptitiously changing her registration back to Democratic (after changing it to Republican in 1982).
So she becomes an influential figure in the emerging Democratic Leadership Council, advocating Democrats reject the 'peace-first', 'blame America first' (not my words) line struck by the party since Vietnam. She probably gets a permanent editorial post at The New Republic -- maybe she even replaces Hendrik Hertzberg as editor in 1985, which wouldn't be the first time the TNR editor has come completely out of the blue. She signs up as a foreign policy adviser to the very young Al Gore (then running as the business-friendly conservative southern candidate) in the 1988 presidential primaries. He loses, but her star rises still further. And through the DLC, she makes connections with an ambitious Southern pol named Bill Clinton. She becomes an influential adviser to his campaign, then his first Ambassador to the UN (replacing Madeleine Albright), then his Secretary of State in 1997. So in 2001 she's roughly where she is now in OTL.
What's changed, here? Well, now she's spent 16 years deeply immersed in the tricky business of electoral politics. She has contacts in the Democratic establishment. She's been an influential figure in running three campaigns, and if you can withstand three campaigns you're probably hooked for life. Through editing TNR she's become a major figure in domestic policy debates as well, the consumnate 'New Democrat'. She's a very conservative Democrat, hawkish on foreign policy and libertarian on economic policy, but a Democrat nonetheless.
Al Gore may pick her as his running mate in 2000 -- if he wins, she's assured a nomination at some point. If he doesn't pick her, or he still loses, she can run instead of Hillary for the New York senate seat in 2000 (having edited TNR, she has connections in the state, and Moynihan would vastly prefer her to Hillary), or she can run in 2000 in Virginia (a trickier bet, but she'll play well in the Northern Virginia suburbs owing to her DC connections), or even run for Governor of California in the 2003 recall (instead of Cruz Bustamante as the Democratic candidate). And these will all be good launchpads for a run.
I remember vaguely that she was a foreign policy adviser to Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential campaign. By this point, though, her very hawkish views were set. But if Hart wins the nomination but loses the general election, she may gain a lot of exposure. Neoconservatives weren't as unwelcome in the Democratic Party of the 1980s as they are now -- think Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the young Joe Lieberman, and even Scoop Jackson only died in 1983. So if Hart wins the nomination in 1984 Rice could be regarded as a Democratic foreign policy guru, surreptitiously changing her registration back to Democratic (after changing it to Republican in 1982).
So she becomes an influential figure in the emerging Democratic Leadership Council, advocating Democrats reject the 'peace-first', 'blame America first' (not my words) line struck by the party since Vietnam. She probably gets a permanent editorial post at The New Republic -- maybe she even replaces Hendrik Hertzberg as editor in 1985, which wouldn't be the first time the TNR editor has come completely out of the blue. She signs up as a foreign policy adviser to the very young Al Gore (then running as the business-friendly conservative southern candidate) in the 1988 presidential primaries. He loses, but her star rises still further. And through the DLC, she makes connections with an ambitious Southern pol named Bill Clinton. She becomes an influential adviser to his campaign, then his first Ambassador to the UN (replacing Madeleine Albright), then his Secretary of State in 1997. So in 2001 she's roughly where she is now in OTL.
What's changed, here? Well, now she's spent 16 years deeply immersed in the tricky business of electoral politics. She has contacts in the Democratic establishment. She's been an influential figure in running three campaigns, and if you can withstand three campaigns you're probably hooked for life. Through editing TNR she's become a major figure in domestic policy debates as well, the consumnate 'New Democrat'. She's a very conservative Democrat, hawkish on foreign policy and libertarian on economic policy, but a Democrat nonetheless.
Al Gore may pick her as his running mate in 2000 -- if he wins, she's assured a nomination at some point. If he doesn't pick her, or he still loses, she can run instead of Hillary for the New York senate seat in 2000 (having edited TNR, she has connections in the state, and Moynihan would vastly prefer her to Hillary), or she can run in 2000 in Virginia (a trickier bet, but she'll play well in the Northern Virginia suburbs owing to her DC connections), or even run for Governor of California in the 2003 recall (instead of Cruz Bustamante as the Democratic candidate). And these will all be good launchpads for a run.
He also still owns the ranch.
To get Condi to be President first there has to be a POD that would make her want to be President.
Actually Condi Rice switched to Republican prior to the 1984 campaign out of disenchantment with Jimmy Carter. As far as anyone knows, she was never affliliated with Gary Hart.
Gary Hart says differently:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart/index.html
I thought so. Now the backdrop here is that I'd known Condi Rice for about 20 years. She supported me in my presidential effort in 1984. She later said she changed parties in the early '80s, but I know she was a supporter of mine in '84. She was completing her Ph.D. at the University of Denver at the time. She helped me with foreign policy in my '84 campaign. I think that's the only reason I got in to the White House to see her.
Okay, ASBish.
A POD with 1980? When Reagan launched his campaign on the steps of the 'Mississippi Burning' courthouse, defending states rights? When the Right consolidated their hold on the GOP, when senate primary loser Jacob Javitts led a pro-choice march on the convention centre?
ASBish.
[Really belongs in chat]Though I'm not surprised that Rice has maintained such a measure of respect with low-info conservatives after the Bush years. She has always projected an aura of competence and moderation, and even someone like myself suspects she worked to end the primacy of Cheney and Rumsfeld in favour of bringing Gates in.
Though why, on closer inspection, anyone would think she wasn't up to her neck in the disastrous overreach of the neo-cons in the first place is beyond me.[/Really belongs in chat]
A POD with 1980? When Reagan launched his campaign on the steps of the 'Mississippi Burning' courthouse, defending states rights? When the Right consolidated their hold on the GOP, when senate primary loser Jacob Javitts led a pro-choice march on the convention centre?
ASBish.
[Really belongs in chat]Though I'm not surprised that Rice has maintained such a measure of respect with low-info conservatives after the Bush years. She has always projected an aura of competence and moderation, and even someone like myself suspects she worked to end the primacy of Cheney and Rumsfeld in favour of bringing Gates in.
Though why, on closer inspection, anyone would think she wasn't up to her neck in the disastrous overreach of the neo-cons in the first place is beyond me.[/Really belongs in chat]
I disagree with the idea that vehement neocons were that welcome in the Democratic Party of the eighties (as opposed to the likes of the very softly spoken Lierberman, a man who close acquaintences say only publicly turned sour after his poor performance in the '04 primaries.)
Moynihan had pretty much broken with the domestic policy neocon obsessions by the Reagan era, and it was Sam Nunn who had the running as the big DLC foreign policy wonk IIRC--and he led the US Senate opposition to Desert Strom.
The career path you sketch isn't implausible, it's just I think Rice would have to be a more conciliatory figure, not a Dem version of Jean Kirkpatrick (for instance, the take-no-prisoners centrists at TNR of Marty Peretz considered Al Gore their ideal career DC insider ally).
Of course it can all be accomplished by spin, I suppose.
ASBish? A respected cabinet member being choosen to replace a old VP with a bad heart is breaking the laws of physics?
And I think we did quite well avoiding chat level partisaness, at least until recently... ahem, if you know what I mean
And of course she was part of the whole "neo-con overreach" as you call it. That doesn't mean that she is impossible for the Oval Office.
That's why in my POD I had her running against Hilliary so that that line of attack would be moderated, but Hillary's support of the war(s).
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
That sounds like a variation of the argument Obama is an Indonesian.
Bush wasn't born in Texas and didn't spend much of his childhood there. He spent his secondary school years at Andover Academy in Massachusetts, the most elite prep school in the country. Other notable attendees include most of the Kennedy kids and children of Saudi oil sheiks.
His accent sounds phony to me and many other Texans, like he's trotting it out for the cameras. Most Texans don't have a Texas accent these days anyway.
Gary Hart also said that nothing was going on aboard the Monkey Business. Without confirmation, I should put this one down as a bit of alternate history from Gary Hart.
How about a biography of Rice, then? pp.40-41 of Condoleezza Rice: a biography by Jacqueline Edmondson, available on Google Books. Or an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-487153/Blindsided-or-blind-Highly-qualified.html. Or the New York Times! http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/w...tutor-academic-public-eye.html?pagewanted=all
Although, in its defence, the NYT article gets the date of her advice wrong (1984, not 1988).
ASBish? A respected cabinet member being choosen to replace a old VP with a bad heart is breaking the laws of physics?
And I think we did quite well avoiding chat level partisaness, at least until recently... ahem, if you know what I mean
And of course she was part of the whole "neo-con overreach" as you call it. That doesn't mean that she is impossible for the Oval Office.
That's why in my POD I had her running against Hilliary so that that line of attack would be moderated, but Hillary's support of the war(s).
Yes, but Corbell, you're someone who thinks that because the conservatives you personally know would have happily ignored Colin Powell's pro-choice, pro-affirmative action views (the same views Rice holds), then the GOP primary electorate would have done the same in 2000, no? (I'm paraphrasing an argument you made on a thread about Powell running in '96 or '00.)
So, if Rice or Powell are acceptable, how about Bloomberg? He has fantastic Wall Street experience, after all!
(And if you're bothered by people bringing partisan arguments into After 1900 then I'm the last person you should be worried about.)(Anyway, I think Rice is ASBish for GOP presidential nominee in the same way a staunchly pro-life so-con Dem like Kathleen Blanco is ASBish in the other party.)
Last edited:
Forget about that, what the hell is her '"Secret" work'?
What on earth could be she have been doing in '08 that disqualifies her for the presidency but didn't disqualify Al Gore in 2000? Or Dick Nixon in 1960? Oh GHW Bush in 1988?*
*Well, the controversy he was involved in at that point wasn't secret.
Also back up by polling at the time, although to be fair I do allow that in a actual campaign with opponents hammering on it, they would be somewhat more impact.
How much though is a matter of conjecture.
So, if Rice or Powell are acceptable, how about Bloomberg? He has fantastic Wall Street experience, after all!
Don't know.
Again, the polling of the time (with powell) showed republicans were pretty happy with such a canidate, (indeed the electorate as a whole). It might be somewhat of a uphill battle, but ...
Geez, for someone who is so quick to jump on McCain you certainly have a soft spot for actual big government* social liberals in the GOP!
So Bloomberg is a possibility for '12 if he rejoins the Republican Party, eh?
*Affirmative action being opposed by conservatives as big government meddling.
Geez, for someone who is so quick to jump on McCain you certainly have a soft spot for actual big government* social liberals in the GOP!
So Bloomberg is a possibility for '12 if he rejoins the Republican Party, eh?
*Affirmative action being opposed by conservatives as big government meddling.
Well you raise an interesting point. And I will give you my opinion on it.
Yes, I, and according to the polls I mentioned, quite a number of conservatives are willing to deal with some canidates or potential canidates with moderate leanings while not others, why is that?
Lets look at my perspective, since it is the one I know best.
Regarding McCain.
When I finally lost patience with him. McCain-Feingold.
As I recall, there was a serious and spreading Democratic campaign financing scandal that had tremendous partisan advantage for the GOP.
THis scandal was ended when McCain-Feingold turned the issue from how bad the dems were to how bad the system was.
Which in my opinion was BS.
But the real point here was that McCain was happy to work with dems against the GOP adgenda.
Now with Powell and Rice, supposedly moderates in their own way the differance is that they have (had) a record of working in conservative administrations, thus conservatives can easily imagine that they would be represented and respected in their hypothetical administrations.
As opposed say to the way that the McCain campaign treated Palin.
Really it comes down to not so much differances on principle, but in practice if the moderate(s) in question are willing to work with the more conservative elements.