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 :
Jun '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Daniels/Bolton 2012! I love Rubio, but he's too young and full of promise to rush into an office 'not worth a warm bucket of p*ss', better imo for him to gain more experience and notoriety for future tappage. As for Condi, I'm with Kenneth. If he needs a foreign policy boost and Bolton has been making noises about wanting to run himself anyway, seems like a dream pairing, but then I'm a fan of the mustache.
Disappointed to learn that Mitch is for ethanol subsidies though, that's not a good sign, and I've read other troubling record blemishes bandied about, although so much else I do know about his record, combined with the appalling present likely field, makes me want to overlook such imperfections and hope he "changes his mind". Hope the next time he's on the podcast Ricochet can pin him down on some of these harder questions. Don't think you guys ever did ask him about his handling of and reaction to the IN legislature's flight as compared to Walker's in WI, and his subsequent dropping of the right to work legislation for a "better time"...
Jan '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I really must take issue with the absurd notion that all libertarians are really socialists that are just waiting to get into public office to start socializing away. What you are really saying is that libertarianism (otherwise known as classical liberalism - one of the animating spirits of the American Revolution) doesn't really exist as a political philosophy.
There is a difference between a libertarian and washed up Hollywood Kennedy-in-law that calls himself "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" to get himself elected.
Aug '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Not Samantha Power is a lot.
Apr '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Bill Whalen:
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!) ·
OK. First, I'm going to expand it just a little beyond the office of Secretary of State
Oct '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Daniels Rice would make a strong team. Rubio is too young and is more of a rock star than a person with gravitas, just like Obama.
Apr '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I was never terribly impressed with the job Rice did running the State Department. I have always felt she should have worked to silence the anti administration elements while running the State Department. She's great as an advisor, but I don't want her as second in command.
Sep '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
I guess I’m going to be off topic by a lot. But I’m imagining the November 2012 day when I’m standing there marking my ballot. I’ll not mark it for BO for course, but if the Republican candidate’s whole deal comes down to starving the beast, I’ll probably not vote for him. I read this forum of intelligent, educated people several times a day and I see too little that is hopeful for the country. A candidacy built only around tax cuts and less regulation just isn’t going to do the job for me next year. I thrill like the rest of you when, for example, Christie takes on the teachers’ unions, but it’s not going to be enough. The country has a host of problems that need working on. Some of them were around when I was born those many years ago; they’ve gotten better in the intervening years, but are still far from fixed. During my lifetime the country has allowed a lot of other problems to develop; I could mention a bunch, but for one, our infrastructure is a wreck. We ought to be doing something about these.
Sep '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Lady Bertrum: 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 13 at 9:27pm
I believe you! Something I hear a lot from a hot woman friend of mine is: Yeah Romney's health care program is bad, but he's sooooo cute!
Groan.
Edited on May 14, 2011 at 8:48amSep '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Count me stupid, but I really like the pairing of Daniels and Rice. Conservative cultural issues are more likely to succeed when approached culturally rather than politically (e.g., abortion: the younger generation is much less enthralled with that right than are women my age, and that's not because we elected an antiabortion president; it's because feminists have gone too far). Presidentially I want someone with good sense on most things, and Daniels has that in spades. (I agree with the ethanol issue, but you can't be a politician from the Midwest and not be for the subsidy; last I heard, even Bachmann equivocates on this point.) A successful state administration is the best experience for succeeding on a federal level. I'd rather have progress toward less government than go for it all at once and fail. As for Rice, I love how she showed up Katie Couric's smugness in a recent interview: firm but calm, she came off as sweet-lipped but with a spine of steel. Anyone who thinks that women and blacks wouldn't at least be drawn to the ticket because of her being on it are, imho, naive.
Aug '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
The State Dept that Condoleeza Rice inherited probably looked like the faculty at Columbia during PLO solidarity week. That she was able to lend Departmental support to any war was surprising and I bet she got backshot more than anyone in a long time. Coming in behind Colin Powell, who came out transformed into an Obama supporter, had to be a cathartic experience.
Richard Armitage was shown the door about then as well. The press is still crowing about Valerie Plame after all the truth has shown them wrong.
Secy Rice had the great sense and good luck to bring John Negroponte in as second for a long stint, bringing intel back into the mix. Of course, the ensuing Clinton years have seen the dept marginalized by the One.
Washington is a pit and the big gig in Foggy Bottom has long been one of the toughest jobs in town. They have never liked Israel over there and Secy Rice did her damnedest to turn things around in spite of the desk jockeys. In the end, it was almost a draw. After all, she helped to get John Bolton into the UN .
Feb '11
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Why hasn't anyone, to my knowledge, mentioned Senator Rob Portman as a potential Veep? Seems to me he'd be a great choice: 12 year congressman, US Trade Representative (foreign policy credentials), budget director, and small business owner. He won that Ohio race by 18 points. And we all know how pivotal Ohio will be. Mark it down: Daniels-Portman in 2012.
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Flownover, thanks for your last post. Well put.
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
1) The fact that Republicans talk of Rubio as VP after 2 years in the Senate is dumber than the Dems elevating Obama after 4. Wait at least till 2016, he is young and there is time. And one can love Christie for the sheer joy of bombastic put-downs of people who so richly deserve it- but you need more than one budget cycle to show that you can handle the give-and-take when confrontation doesn't carry the day and the other side has had a chance to strategize. Americans want to vote for optimistic and likable people.
2) Rice is perfectly fine for the reasons Flownover points out, though she probably doesn't want the job.
3) The reasons I see listed above, based on libertarian or social purity, for denigrating GWB and Daniels pretty well explains why we may well be screwed for 2012. If Daniels-Pawlenty-Rice-etc. are insufficiently conservative, when they oppose Obama's spending spree, we will never find a candidate who will gain support of the Anthony Kennedy independent swing voters who dictate the outcomes. Prepare for another 4 years of executive orders and Boeing lawsuits.
Good grief.
Nov '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Bjarni Olafsson: I really must take issue with the absurd notion that all libertarians are really socialists that are just waiting to get into public office to start socializing away.
· May 14 at 3:18am
Read Janiskee's article- the data are irrefutable. The argument is emphatically not that libertarians are actually socialists, as if to say they understand themselves as wittingly presenting some factitious public "mask" of themselves as limited government advocates, with designs to jettison this once in office. Ultimately, one has to be specific about what one means by libertarian. All of us are libertarian to some extent. There are degrees of it. I'm not aware that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson ever supported ethanol subsidies or anything that smacked of rent-seeking. But libertarians of such mettle holding office are incredibly rare.
In any event, these types avail themselves of otherwise very stupid pronouncements, whether it's about OBL/fighting terror, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. The reasons for their confusion on such matters is a consequence of their attenuated sense of a collective political-moral teaching. If one spins out the implications of such pronouncements, they amount to the undoing of limited government.
Nov '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
That's right, libertarianism is not a coherent political philosophy. The Founders were not libertarians. Libertarians do not understand that all markets, contracts, and associations among individuals presuppose an absolute prior agreement to the "game" or the whole arrangement. These are decided before the fact, which is to say politically. One first has to have an established rule of law, justice being the fundamental political term. Justice segues to the question of the good. Last I checked, John Locke, Adam Smith, etc., absolutely were not arguing for, say, lax immigration with respect to peoples of whatever character so long as they have good job skills (Claire's argument). They held a concept of the public good, a collective teaching regarding the good as fit for a people of a certain character, habits, dispositions. It was not a teaching of self-interest however understood. In other words, they did not hold morality or happiness to be idiosyncratic as based on discrete, absolute individuality (autonomy).
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Kenneth: Well, here's my take on this, five hours ago.... · May 13 at 7:35pm
Edited on May 13 at 07:37 pm
As some of you may remember, Kenneth and I tangled over Governor Daniels a while ago. Then, he was an enthusiast, and I had grave doubts. I will not say that each of us has done a turnabout. But I am more willing to cut the Governor some slack on this question than Kenneth.
On ethanol, we are in agreement. But let's face it: the Governor of Indiana has to be in favor of it. I take his feint in the direction of Condoleeza Rice as a confession that, with regard to foreign affairs, he needs some guidance. That I take to be a good sign -- for, if you remember, my misgivings regarding Governor Daniels stemmed in part from the fact that I wondered how well-equipped he was to be Commander-in-Chief.
Now, Rice would not be my first choice, but I doubt that this is anything more than a gesture -- an indication that he knows and appreciates the importance of what he does not know. I hope that this is the case.
Jul '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth: Well, here's my take on this, five hours ago.... · May 13 at 7:35pm
Edited on May 13 at 07:37 pm
As some of you may remember, Kenneth and I tangled over Governor Daniels a while ago. Then, he was an enthusiast, and I had grave doubts. I will not say that each of us has done a turnabout. But I am more willing to cut the Governor some slack on this question than Kenneth.
Mitch's musings about Condoleeza Rice reveal, in my view, a failure on his part to comprehend what a disaster she was as Secretary of State and his inability to recognize that she was never qualified for the position in the first place.
I've not written Governor Daniels off quite yet. But this does give me pause.
And let me note that concern about foreign policy wanes when we stand proudly as the world's premier economic power. To the extent that Mitch Daniels might restore us to that status, he'd have less need for advice from the likes of Condoleeza Rice.
Sep '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Duane Oyen: 1) The fact that Republicans talk of Rubio as VP after 2 years in the Senate is dumber than the Dems elevating Obama after 4. Wait at least till 2016, he is young and there is time. And one can love Christie for the sheer joy of bombastic put-downs of people who so richly deserve it- but you need more than one budget cycle to show that you can handle the give-and-take when confrontation doesn't carry the day and the other side has had a chance to strategize. Americans want to vote for optimistic and likable people.
Good grief. · May 14 at 12:44pm
Much better said than my go at it. But for heavens sake, shouldn't a crowd like Ricochet be able to find something that it could be positive and optimistic about? One thing we've got going for us is that way more than half of the country ain't gonna believe Obama's hopey-changey thing again.
Edited on May 14, 2011 at 4:33pmRe: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
We should keep in mind that Marco Rubio had a distinguished legislative career in Florida before he ran for the United States Senate. He was not just a fellow who voted present. I would not rule him out as VP material -- not at all.
May '10
Re: Daniels . . . and a Side of Rice?
Patrick in Albuquerque
...shouldn't a crowd like Ricochet be able to find something that it could be positive and optimistic about? One thing we've got going for us is that way more than half of the country ain't gonna believe Obama's hopey-changey thing again. · May 14 at 4:28pm
The race is early yet, and Romney is already limping, so we may be able to avoid the heir-apparent-Bob-Dole-my-turn syndrome in favor of a good debate on the issues.
I still say that it is dumb to push Rubio already- can he do the VP job? Sure- even better than Alexander Throttlebottom- or Biden. But Rubio is a potential star, don't push him before his time as a "young Latino" token- 50% of the reason his name comes up. Ron Johnson has more executive experience and as much Senate tenure as Rubio, has actually worked outside of government- we don't promote him as a possible VP.
It will be necessary in the race against Obama to point out that buying a state legislator-turned-new-Senator was a bad decision in 2008. Unless we copy that bad decision.