Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
The first rule of writing that I learned a jillion years ago in journalism school, back when dinosaurs and typewriters roamed the earth: never bury the lede.
Which is exactly what happened in this Real Clear Politics piece about Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.
One has to navigate all the way to the closing words to find this nugget:
"Daniels accepted an invitation from those 55 students to meet at a spacious bar several blocks away after the event; he sipped Woodford Reserve bourbon as he asked them about their own lives and families. In return, they asked him who he might like to tap as his vice presidential nominee if he runs.
Hypothetically, he told them, he'd like to pick Condoleezza Rice."
Since we're dealing in what-ifs, let me run a few by you:
1) Should we even be discussing running mates for a gentleman who's yet to enter the race, much less win a primary or caucus (so much for Ron Paul's big roll-out dominating the day's news)? The Answer: yes. The GOP has a particularly long bench of governors -- newly-elected governors, fresh faces in Congress and resume-ed names like Secretary Rice. It's worth debating which of these men and women adds the most to a national ticket.
2) How, exactly, does Rice strengthen a Daniels candidacy -- aside from the obvious domestic policy/foreign policy offset? Would she improve the party's numbers among women and African-Americans? Would her presence make it more difficult for Daniels to distance himself from the Bush Administration?
3) Does the veep pick really matter? Democrats will say that Joe Biden added need foreign-policy gravitas to the Obama candidacy. Riiiiiiight . . . the same Joe Biden who had it wrong on the first Gulf War and Iraq rebuilding. Yes, vice presidential selections add excitement to a national convention. My feeling is they matter far less come Election Day (unless the veep pick is a total nincompoop).
4) I'm going to stick with what brought me to Ricochet: my theory that the best GOP ticket remains Daniels and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. This is not a slight against Condoleezza Rice. Rather, I think the most practical choice in a running mate is someone who gives the ticket a better shot at scoring 29 electoral votes in #2's home state and perhaps build a bridge to Latino voters in other swing states. I know some of you hate this -- crunching numbers is too "Rove-ian" for your tastes. I'm sticking with this pair.
If you have a better 2012 scenario, or think Condi Rice is the right choice for running mate bar none, then feel free to fire away . . .
btw, here's a list of U.S. Secretaries of States. Have fun hunting for the ones who ran for the presidency, or actually gained national office (admit it: you were a closet Al Haig fan in 1988!)
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Well, here's my take on this, five hours ago....
Edited on May 13, 2011 at 7:37pmRe: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Rubio would help Daniels a lot more with Republicans than Condi—the conservative base would come out in droves to vote for him, because he's a conservative. Condi gives Daniels foreign-policy credibility, but doesn't do a thing to shore up the doubts of conservatives who are already giving him the fisheye for his Social-Issues-Truce talk.
If there were no black Democrat on the ticket, I could see Condi pulling some significant number of black votes, but against Obama? Not enough to be helpful in that sense.
Condi Rice might be the high-level Republican I'd most like to talk with over dinner (especially if I could talk her into playing some piano afterwards), but I don't think she'll help Daniels as much as he seems to think.
Aug '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Bill Whalen:
2) How, exactly, does Rice strengthen a Daniels candidacy -- aside from the obvious domestic policy/foreign policy offset? Would she improve the party's numbers among women and African-Americans?
Women, maybe. African-Americans, probably not enough to count. However there would be a pretty big effect for white moderates who like the idea of voting for a black candidate as a demonstrate of their own post-racialness. Rice gives these voters permission to vote GOP.
Absolutely. You can already imagine the Soros 507s buying ad time for commercials that present Daniels-Rice as the team that brought you the Iraq war, him for the OMB estimate (which isn't really fair) and her for the National Security Strategy (which is fair).
Jun '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Rice has made it pretty clear, you couldn't drag her into this race, or any political race, with a hundred mules pulling their hardest.
Jan '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Which may be why Daniels mentioned her - a nice nod to african-americans/women without really committing to anything...or am I being too cynical?
Jul '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I cannot imagine any voting group for whom Rice would be an attraction.
On the contrary, I wouldn't vote for a GOP ticket with Rice on it, because in the case of her succession to the Presidency, she would be a disaster. She parlayed her slim credentials as an expert on the Soviet Union to a sinecure with the naive Bush family - where, under George W., she spun the absurd idea of democratizing the Middle East, at the cost of more than a trillion dollars and 7,000 American lives.
Let her go back to academia, where she cannot continue to do damage.
Sep '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
She is the "not Herman Cain" VP pick for Daniels.
Jan '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Bjarni Olafsson
Which may be why Daniels mentioned her - a nice nod to african-americans/women without really committing to anything...or am I being too cynical? · May 13 at 8:22pm
Hey, this is American politics, how could anyone possibly be too cynical when dealing with their motives.
Apr '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
As individuals I like both Daniels and Condi fine. While she has mad foreign policy skills, she's too similar to Daniels in style; they're both soft-spoken, understated individuals. You need a contrast for a VP. Obama is cool/academic/booky; Bidden is goofy/down-to-earch/approachable. He needs someone like Rubio or Christie, not only to deliver large states, but also to add some charisma.
Jan '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Bjarni O (I love the name). You are right. That is Mitch's style which is why voters love him. If you know Indiana you know why he rides a Harley around the state and chit chats with people about their families. Run Mitch Run.
Apr '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Although I am unenthusiastic about the choice of Rice, I would at least like to know his reasons for the choice. I recognize that I will not agree with every decision that the Republican nominee (and hopefully president) will make. But I would like to know which of those decisions are "wrong, but defensible" and those which are "completely indefensible" and I can't decide that until I know his reasons.
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Agreed, Rubio would be the smartest pick, assuming he could handle the stage and scrutiny. We know that Condi could, and I still think Condi would be good strategy as a VP pick, but after some thought today....I think I might feel like I was voting for more W. I think most people would feel that way at least to some extent.
To me, this is Mitch admitting (again) that he is concerned about his ability to stand up to foreign policy scrutiny. Which is understandable. He needs to hire the right people and get smart enough to feel comfortable in any interview and any debate, now.
Rubio probably best for the party in the long run and certainly in the short run.
Apr '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Note: I realize I'm trivializing the debate with this comment.
Daniels should pick Rubio because he's hot. Talk about new female voters. Trust me on this; I know of what I speak (fanning myself).
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Rubio's the veep choice. The Pubbies have to have their slice of the future...and Latinos will be the big voting block of the next 50 years. It's their trump card. Play it now, or weep as the country circles the porcelain bus in 2013-2017.
It will take a man willing to let his veep choice take the limelight...not sure who that might be...
Nov '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Kenneth's arguments against Rice are excellent. In a saner world she wouldn't be heard from again.
As for Daniels, support for ethanol mandates/subsidies goes hand in hand with calls to truce over social (political-moral) issues. When the chips are down, those who argue from utility and economy almost invariably vote for larger government. Anyone who thinks I'm talking nonsense, see Brian Janiskee's work (political scientist, Cal State San Bernardino) on this.
Not to get too theoretical, but the reason for the paradox of libertarianish politicians voting for bigger government is wrapped up with autonomy. In a nutshell, people viewing themselves as autonomous deny any law or standard of good higher than their own will. (After all, the very word means self-lawmaking; auto nomos). If there's no law higher than my will that can guide it, then why not make some common cause with government to get what I want?
Oddly enough, autonomy segues to viewing people as not responsible for their choices. With no collective moral teaching, why shouldn't this be the case? Abortion is ok- it wasn't the pregnant girl's fault; ergo public pays for it, etc.
Edited on May 13, 2011 at 10:30pmDec '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
To my mind and that of many others, a big reason why George Bush's 2nd term was such a disappointment was because of the increased role Condi Rice played in it.
I was a big Condi fan term one, and was one of those people who fantasized about a future Rice presidency. But, by the end of term two, my enthusiasm for her had completely soured. She was a disaster. Instead of representing Bush to the rotten State Department, it was as if she represented the State Department to Bush.
Daniels is not considered a true conservative by most conservatives. Rice is not a true conservative. Without a conservative on the ticket, there will never be any excitement for him. He would need, I believe, one of the following: Rubio, West, Bolton, Bachman, or Palin.
Mar '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I lost the post I was gonna write on this, but Vuvuzela said it better, anyway.
I really don't understand why Hamlet, err, I mean Daniels, is so popular with the Ricochet intelligentsia.
It seems like Ryan is more interested in the Senate, which makes me question his judgement (plus, he was surprised that Mr Obama demagogued him - that should have been obvious).
So, that leaves Cain for President - Rubio, West, Bolton, Bachmann or Palin for VP.
(any of the VP candidates would be fine for President, also - but they don't seem very likely - Bachmann, maybe)
Christie - also fine, but he is supporting Daniels? Maybe I just don't understand Republican politics.
Edited on May 13, 2011 at 11:03pmNov '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I have a hard time thinking about this because all I can think about is what a disaster for conservatives and the Republican party a Daniels presidency would be.
Obama has done more for conservatism than a McCain presidency would have done. If McCain had won in 2008 the present conservative ascendancy would not exist, in fact conservatism would be in the tank. Republicans would be also. If Daniels should get the nomination, conservatives should hope he loses so they’ll have a chance to elect a conservative in 2016. Otherwise 2016 could be the year the Republican party becomes a permanent minority party, and conservatives will be zoo animals.
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Ducatista: I have a hard time thinking about this because all I can think about is what a disaster for conservatives and the Republican party a Daniels presidency would be.
· May 13 at 10:43pm
Can you elaborate? Are you referring to concerns on social issues? Why is Daniels such a blow to conservatism? It's not enough to carp -- you also have to be prepared to lead. Surely Daniels' track record in Indiana meets with conservative approval?
Nov '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Trace Urdan
Ducatista: I have a hard time thinking about this because all I can think about is what a disaster for conservatives and the Republican party a Daniels presidency would be.
· May 13 at 10:43pm
Can you elaborate? Are you referring to concerns on social issues? Why is Daniels such a blow to conservatism? It's not enough to carp -- you also have to be prepared to lead. Surely Daniels' track record in Indiana meets with conservative approval? · May 13 at 11:07pm
If I may take a stab at the question, it would have something to do with what I said above.