Like John Presnall, I have Sirius XM radio in my car. So I was driving home yesterday and I heard William Kristol on the 4:00 PM FOX News show. Kristol was touting (though not entirely endorsing) Condoleezza Rice for Vice President. Romney choosing Rice would be a serious political error. Rice is pro-choice on abortion, and it’s not like Romney has an excess of credibility with pro-lifers to begin with. So here is how it would play out if Romney picked Rice: He would face a revolt among strongly pro-life Republicans. The news would get real interested in Rick Santorum’s opinion on the subject. Romney and Rice would have to spend days and days publicly reassuring pro-lifers that he hasn’t already begun the process of selling them out. Not all pro-lifers would buy it. I wouldn’t. In the meantime, persuadable voters who place a low priority on social issues would see a party having nervous breakdown over an issue they don’t especially care about. So selecting Rice would demoralize pro-lifers, and end up making the Republicans look obsessed with abortion to those who don’t care about the issue. Strongly committed pro-choicers already have their candidate. And what is the gain? Rice is obviously a very smart, very accomplished, and seemingly decent woman. She was also one of George W. Bush’s top foreign policy advisers during the whole of Bush’s two terms. That includes the mishandling of Iraq policy from the Summer of 2003 until the Surge. Picking Rice makes the election somewhat less about the economy and somewhat more about the least popular parts of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy record. Romney choosing Rice to be his running mate would be a lose-lose-lose proposition.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 7:38 PM
July 10th, 2012 | 8:04 pm
Well that says it all.
July 10th, 2012 | 8:04 pm
Governor Romney wont be picking a woman (or minority) for veep.
Not because he is misogynist or even a racist, I really don’t think he has one of those bones in his body.
But rather because he is a well conditioned old school Mormon.
If he DOES choose a woman or a minority for a running mate, I will come back here and let you all feed me spoonfuls of crow. Hold me to it.
July 10th, 2012 | 8:19 pm
Peter, thanks.
Chas, Romney’s (successful) running mate for Lt. Governor in MA was a woman.
July 10th, 2012 | 9:21 pm
I agree, picking a VP doesn’t matter much…unless your pick is really stupid. So a VP is sort of like a pair of socks, 9 times out of 10, you can wear any black sock, even an atheletic black sock with dress shoes(I like the comfort, and sweat absorpion better than the paper thin/fashionable dress sock… ) But wear white athletic socks…While a lot of the noise that would occur from Rice would just be static that would fade, it probably isn’t smart to stir up that kind of static.
Then again sometimes I think Romney likes to do this.
On the other hand, in my opinion… A Gov. like Jindal can actually do more about abortion, than a president, let alone a Vice President.
In a Machiavellian/functional sense then Jindal for VP is a more pro-choice than Rice. (assuming the replacement LA Gov, spends less time hunting down abortion forum shopping, and pushing parental consent).
That is a good deal of abortion law is at the state level, in areas like familly law/parental consent, and the legality or illegality of forum shopping abortion law(taking a preg teen out of a “conservative” state and into a more “liberal” one, minus Roe v. Wade this problem would be a lot greater, and more significant, the more recent precedent (Gonzales) that pushes abortion back, does so rather optionally thus putting us in a position where there is some return to differentiation/federalism/ lab democracy/exceptionalism among states) I assume that a president Romney would spend his first few days getting rid of executive orders Obama put in motion, and that somewhere in the great web of admin law some token pro-choice policy preferences would be reversed. (Lame duck admin law is the worst.)
But really given the state of the law, being pro-life seems rather moot. Given general poll direction there is almost no reason to fear Romney selling out on this issue. In some sense(namely the functional one) the pro-life/pro-choice opinion of Rice would be insignificant.
She would wear a foreing policy hat, but with connections to Bush it might not be the best optics.
So if you are as pragmatic/functional as Kirstol is, you can make an argument for Rice. The argument is Rice being Pro-Choice or Pro-Life matters about as much to national policy as Your star quaterback endorsing Hertz, while your tailback endorses Budget. I am not saying a lawyer who gets paid $500/h couldn’t sell you on a conflict of interest (or that Budget or Hertz wouldn’t latch unto the sub-argument in the negotiations over endorsement compensation…) But it is arguably not material.
Still for all the rhetorical reasons you say picking Rice is hardly “smart”.
In any case, I can’t be a pure functionalist(out of ignorance) and because perception and branding do matter.
I don’t really have a horse in the race, but If I was giving a professional opinion, I would say: Jindal(defering largely to your opinion), followed by Portman (just because Ohio will be close, + I can credibly entertain the uncomfirmable opinion that he adds 50k votes), followed by Christie (because I like his spunk).
Hard for me to see how any of these three picks would be errors.
July 10th, 2012 | 9:26 pm
The Republican party still hasn’t come to grips with the fact that the super-hawkish Bush foreign policy is the reason the party lost control of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008. Republicans like Kristol were undoubtedly a necessary cause that led to the Obama administration we now have
There should have been a median position between the “no military” stance of Ron Paul and the very hawkish stance of Santorum and Romney, but we were left with the two extremes in this primary. I personally knew numerous conservative, pro-life Catholics who didn’t support Santorum because of his pro-preemptive strike stance on Iran. Every single other thing about the guy they liked, but they didn’t want another war. Santorum ended up not winning the majority of Catholics in some crucial primaries, and I think foreign policy was the reason.
July 11th, 2012 | 10:19 am
CJW’s last paragraph is important. Romney can’t appear too hawkish, even though he might well be. He doesn’t want to run on Rice’s record.
July 11th, 2012 | 7:41 pm
My guess is, absent major developments, Romney isn’t going to talk about Iran even a bit more than he has to, and will try to avoid giving persuadable voters the idea that he will be reckless with military power. As for what he does in office, I dunno – but then again it isn’t like I have a strong sense of what he will actually try to do in domestic policy either.
July 11th, 2012 | 9:18 pm
I think Condi is hands down the best pick for Romney. Remember GH Bush changed his position on abortion when Reagan selected him for vp in 1980, and Condi could easily do the same, especially since her statement 4 years ago was a VERY tepid pro-choice stance, and one motivated by fear of government overreach- something even pro-lifers can understand. The fact is, a VP is goingto have no say in the abortion issue anyway, so it seems rather short sighted to say you’ll be concerned by her as a pick, hen the alternative would be another term of Obama who you know will be appointing radical pro-choicers for sure.
Condi is the best pick for Romney WINNING, and Romney winning is the only chance we have to curb the slide toward more abortions.
I hope Condi is on the ticket.
Signed,
A Fellow Pro-Lifer
July 11th, 2012 | 10:19 pm
FWIW, I suspect that Romney’s hawkish speech-making is for the benefit of his neocon donors on Wall Street. (That’s not to say that the hawks and neocons are wrong about everything, I hasten to add.) But surely Romney realizes that these themes are not going to win many votes (except maybe to keep evangelicals of the Rev Hagee camp on board), and there’s nothing in Romney’s background to indicate that the rhetoric he’s using is reflective of his actual beliefs.
July 11th, 2012 | 11:14 pm
Oh who knows what anybody really thinks? I mean, you can find plenty of examples of even”principled” politicians saying one thing while doing another. (Bridge to nowhere, anyone?) It’s one of the things we have to put up with with politicians- but we have no choice bc they’re all like that. (BC the ones that really do always say what they mean and mean what they say don’t get elected!) case in point: Condi Rice was very forthright with her views on abortion, and already you have people saying “well I could NEVER accept her!” how ridiculous. What a breath of fresh air it’d be to have someone like her who isn’t a career politician in office.
July 12th, 2012 | 9:39 am
Condi Rice, a “breath of fresh air”? Yes, if you think that Alberto Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, and Andy Card would be “breaths of fresh air.”
You don’t have to be a career politician to be tired, stale and dull. And I’m sure the Dems would love to relitigate the Iraq war in this campaign. Other than on foreign policy, I’m not sure what differences Rice has with the current administration.
July 12th, 2012 | 6:14 pm
Tom, “Remember GH Bush changed his position on abortion when Reagan selected him for vp in 1980″ Yeah, but the context is different. This isn’t the second presidential election since ROE made abortion a major issue in federal politics, and Romney has about a zero credit rating as a conviction politician. So even if Rice is willing to make an election year conversion on the issue (not a given), Romney is still stuck explaining why pro-lifers should trust him on the issue when he just put a pro-choicer on the ticket or explaining why Rice’s conversion was sincere and basically spending a lot of time try to explain to people who nominally agree with him about abortion that he agrees with them. And he wouldn’t convince all pro-lifers and he is losing opportunities to talk about issues that interest people who don’t much care about abortion one way or another. so he weakens himself with two constituencies. And for what? So he and Rice can spend the fall campaign explaining how her performance as Bush advisor from Summer 2003-November 2006 was better than the results in Iraq would indicate? There might even be a case there, but even if they could win THAT argument somehow, it still doesn’t constitute a compelling reason to vote for Romney for President in 2012. It’s a lose, lose, lose.
July 12th, 2012 | 6:41 pm
Nope, it’s a win, win, win. Anyone who doesn’t vote for a Romney/Rice ticket because of the abortion issue is partly responsible for ll the babies that will die under Obama’s watch. Remember, Obama supported late, partial birth abortions- the cruelest of the cruel. Condi does not. Obama does not support parental notification, allowing teenagers to make a life and death decision on their own. Condi does. There is a huge gap of difference between the two. Romney can win with Condi. And that, my friends, will save innocent lives whichever way you look at it.
July 12th, 2012 | 7:52 pm
“Nope, it’s a win, win, win. Anyone who doesn’t vote for a Romney/Rice ticket because of the abortion issue is partly responsible for ll the babies that will die under Obama’s watch.” How does demoralizing the pro-life vote by having a candidate of questionable pro-life principles put a pro-choicer on the ticket end up being a win for anybody but Obama? How is the time spent reassuring pro-lifers that a Romney-Rice ticket is not a betrayal of pro-lifers not a series of opportunities for appealing to votes for whom abortion is a low-salience issue? How is dragging around the most unpopular parts of Bush’s foreign policy a help to the ticket?
July 12th, 2012 | 8:44 pm
You really think there’s any chance Romney/Rice would be as bad or worse than Obama/Biden on abortion?
Guess what: we live in a diverse, free country where we all have to make compromises for the greater good sometimes. I doubt any politician will ever live up to my expectations fully on all the issues I care about. But I do know the are better and worse choices.
Romney has been very pro-life. Rice doesn’t support late-term abortions, favors parental notification, and opposes federal funding of abortion. Her reasoning is libertarian in nature. I may not fully agree with her, (i am stridently pro-life) but I respect her and know she’s heads and shoulders better than the alternative. I think most pro-lifers will agree.
July 12th, 2012 | 8:49 pm
As for the foreign policy, please name me 1 person seriously being considered whose foreign views are different. Romney’s certainly aren’t. And Obama has basically been bush on steroids in alot of ways.
July 12th, 2012 | 9:02 pm
I just think the number of votes Romney will get from the center from a Rice pick are greater than the number he might lose from pro-lifers who vote based on whether a vp nominee has a strict pro-life view, which I suspect is very small indeed. Especially in crucial swing states.
July 12th, 2012 | 10:05 pm
“You really think there’s any chance Romney/Rice would be as bad or worse than Obama/Biden on abortion?” Nobody has to think they’re worse, just that Romney’s pro-life politics is a hustle and a pro-choice VP would be a confirmation of that suspicion. Taking pro-lifers for granted in this way would be mistake he deserved to pay for.
“As for the foreign policy, please name me 1 person seriously being considered whose foreign views are different.” How about somebosy who wasn’t a senior Bush advisor during the mismanagement of the Iraq campaign? That would be nice. It doesn’t mean it is Rice’s fault, but does anybody want to relive the failed counterterrorism strategy from Summer 2003 to November 2006? Does anybody want to have a debate every darn thing Rice said during this period. This isn’t helpful.
“Romney has been very pro-life.” No. Santorum has been very pro-life. Romney has said what he needed to say to win whatever constituency he was trying to win over next. Santorum mihgt have been able to pull of a Rice pick if paired with an election year conversion (actually I doubt it for a lot of the same reasons), but picking Rice would revive every doubt social conservatives have about Romney.
” I just think the number of votes Romney will get from the center from a Rice pick are greater than the number he might lose from pro-lifers” Tha’s just it. Who is this “center”? Pro-lifers would have reason to be against the pick. The internal fight over the pick would make Republicans look crazy and confused to people who don’t care about abortion. The least popular (as in McCain and Obama both didn’t like them) parts of the Bush foreign policy record attain a new salience. Pro-choicers with an entirely uncritical view of the George W. Bush’s foreign policy record probably isn’t a constituency Romney needs to spend a lot of time courting (assuming such people even exist in numbers above the single digits.)
July 12th, 2012 | 10:29 pm
Well, Pete, I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this one. Looking around at how the liberals are frreaking out on the message boards right now, though, I’d say Condi is a great pick. Even Sarah Palin herself said so on Greta tonight, despite the abortion issue. So, I think you are way overestimating the impact of people who vote based solely on how a VP feels about abortion. As it’s not like Ruce is radically pro-choice anyway.
July 13th, 2012 | 6:44 am
It’s not as if a VP can do anything about the abortion issue, anyway.
July 13th, 2012 | 10:23 am
Isn’t anyone concerned about the fact the Condi is an unmarried, middle-aged woman? Won’t the nods and winks from that realllllly upset some of the social conservatives?
July 13th, 2012 | 11:08 am
“So, I think you are way overestimating the impact of people who vote based solely on how a VP feels about abortion.” I wouldn’t underestimate how much pro-lifers already have highly conditional support of Romney and how much damage picking a pro-choice VP would do to that relationship. That is to say nothing of the time and work that would have to go into rebuilding that relationship to somewhere close to where it was before he picked a pro-choice VP. All this for the pleasure of having her and Romney explain what she thought of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq transition strategy when she was at the President’s right hand during all the worst moments.
Kate, sure, but the VP can be President and the choice of the VP can signal something about the presidential candidate’s intentions – and picking a pro-choice VP would be a signal to pro-lifers about how he much or little he would use his (limited) leverage as President to advance their cause (which to listen to him is also his cause.) As Ramesh Ponnuru points out today at NRO, Rice would be the first pro-choice Republican VP pick since ROE (or maybe since 1976 – I can’t remember if Ford took a position on abortion that year.) That would be a signal.
July 13th, 2012 | 12:04 pm
Condi Rice would be the worst possible VP choice. We’ve spent 3 1/2 years patiently explaining to this Administration why its virulent case of Bush Derangement Syndrome is getting worse. To nominate the face of that Administration and its failures would be to hand Obama a victory. What’s next? Dick Cheney for DHS head? She cannot enhance Romney’s electability (the very reason we were all told we HAD TO HAVE Romney), but she will hurt him.
I’ve had it with RINOs. No more. I don’t care who Romney picks, I’m voting third party – to hell with them all!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact