Asymmetrical Information

Bush would appoint a VP. When Nixon was President in his second term, Agnew was his VP. Agnew resigned because of a scandal, and Nixon appointed Ford to be the VP.

As I understand it, the President nominates a successor to the office of VP and then a joint session of Congress votes on the succession.

I can't remember what part of the Constitution specificies it, but it's probably in the same Ammendment that defines the order of succession.

The President appoints, then the Senate confirms, a new VP.

Amendment 25, Section 2.

Oops, that's right both houses of Congress.

You are incorrect. If the VP office is vacant (for whatever reason) the President may appoint a new VP subject to confirmation by both houses of congress. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am25)

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 sets the order of succession only to the Presidency itself. Every other executive office or legislative position has it's own rules for being filled.

Ford was not Speaker, he was Minority Leader. Nixon appointed Ford VP, both men knowing by then that it was tantamount to appointment to the presidency. The quid pro quo was Ford's pardon of Nixon. After Nixon resigned and he ascended to the Presidency, Ford appointed Rockefeller Vice President. A month later, Ford pardoned not only Nixon's Watergate lies, but all his crimes. Thus one of history's monsters escaped justice. The pardon destroyed Ford's honor, his effectiveness as President, and his historical legacy.

Cripes, one I knew, and I get beaten to it by everyone. Not good.

I think, by the way, that you can color Colin Powell out of the equation on the Presidency - he killed his credibility with moderates by toting water for this President, and he's not conservative enough ("not a real Republican," as they use to say about GHWB) for the Republican base.

Condi's out too - go look at the substantial male gap and white gap that the Republicans own, note that the party's relative strength starts with its ownership of the South, and wonder briefly whether you see a black woman who has never married being run at the top of the ticket for the Republicans in 2008.

I don't think Cheney's going to leave (it's arguably really his Presidency), but if he does they'll tap Frist. Nice biography, from the South, self-evidently smart, malleable (knows he's not a great politician), and useless legislatively. There are no down sides to his selection.

> Thus one of history's monsters escaped justice.

I assume this is irony.

Genghis Khan - terrorized Europe and Asia. Conquered China.

Jeffrey Dahmer - ate his neighbors - was murdered by fellow inmates out of fear.

Quantrill - massacred settlers in Missouri and Kansas. His gang spawned Jesse James.

Nixon - authorized a pointless break-in at a hotel to steal the secrets of a campaign so ill-conceived that it lost every state sans one, and wore ill-fitting suits. His legacy is...normalization of relations with China and SALT I. Monstrous.

History's Monsters. Sounds like a great name for a band.

Nixon - authorized a pointless break-in at a hotel to steal the secrets of a campaign...

I don't think Nixon "authorized" (or otherwise had prior knowledge of) the break-in. But he learned of it later, and his crime was participating in the cover-up.

Jody's account was factually correct. Although I hated Nixon then and was happy when the old crook finally took a dirt nap, I disagree with Jody's opinion about pardoning Nixon. By the time Ford stepped into the presidency, the nation badly needed to get past Watergate and get back to business. The pardon did that and prevented a long and highly publicized trial (worse than OJ Simpson's), with a lot of rather dubious evidence being gone over again and again in public.

And I didn't expect anything good to come out of a trial even when the final verdict was in. Nixon was definitely morally responsible - if he didn't order or know about illegal acts by his employees, he had to be willfully blind as well as a remarkably incompetent boss - but the evidence to prove he took part in actual criminal acts was scanty. If he was acquitted, then where would we be? And if he was convicted (far more likely), then "pre-trial publicity" would give him the perfect grounds for an appeal. We might even have wound up with several OJ Simpson-like trials in a row, if juries kept convicting him and his lawyers kept convincing the appeals courts that any juror who hadn't been in a coma from 1972-74 was prejudiced. After all that, maybe he'd be behind bars for a few months.

Ford's pardon stopped all that and put Nixon into permanent limbo - not convicted, not even indicted, but certainly not innocent. I would have preferred that Ford make a public confession of wrongdoing the price of getting the pardon, but even without that, Nixon no longer counted in national affairs.

"...you see a black woman who has never married..."

What exactly are you implying about the prejudices of Bush voters, Tim? And what exactly are you implying about Condi? Okay, okay -- cheap shot.

But really, I gotta say that I strongly doubt that GOPers would feel that way. Mark my words -- in the next twenty years, a black man will run and win for President of the United States. That man will be a Republican.

Condi would be great, but she is on the record as pro-choice, so she doesnt have a shot at the Republican ticket. Since the Democrats have made no space for pro lifers, we are all in the Republican party and simply will not allow a candidate to be on the record favoring abortion rights -- Pro Lifers will tolerate evasive statements or no record, but not "reluctantly pro choice."

Condi Rice is very popular witht the Republican base. Single black female or not. There was a huge movment in the base to replace Cheny with her

And (small c) conservatives do take bigger risks with this kind of thing than liberals do anyway. For example Thatcher and Disraeli in England.

Cheney's health is such that I am sure he will be replaced soon or late. And Rice is the person on the bench with the biggest hitting power in an election.

After Gerald Ford became president, Neslon Rockefeller was appointed as VP, he was never in the House. Also, Gerald Ford was not speaker of the House, since the Republicans were the minority party. He was also appointed VP after the resignation of Spiro Agnew, who was the VP that was elected with Nixon. Both Ford and Rockefeller therefore were appointed to the Vice Presidency. I do not recall the process by which each of these men were appointed or confirmed to the position, but it probably had to at least pass the Senate, since the VP is also President of the Senate, and maybe required both houses. The succession to the presidency only goes to the Speaker of the House if the Vice Presidency is vacant.

I would look at the pool of current and ex-Republican governors for the nominee in 2008. if Condi wants to be President, she has to hold elective office first.

Bush - Governor of Texas
Clinton - Governor of Arkansas, AG of Arkansas
Bush - VP, Congressman from Texas
Reagan - Governor of California
Carter - Governor of Georgia
Ford - Congressman from Michigan
Nixon - VP, Congressman, Senator from California
Johnson - VP, Senator from Texas
Kennedy - Senator from Massachusetts
Eisenhower - General of the Army
Truman - VP, Senator from Missouri
Roosevelt - Governor of New York, New York Senator
Hoover - Secretary of Commerce
Coolidge - VP, Governor of Massachusetts
Harding - Senator from Ohio
Wilson - Governor of New Jersey
Taft - Secretary of War
Roosevelt - VP, Governor of New York
McKinley - Congressman and Governor of Ohio
Cleveland - President, Governor of New York
Harrison - Senator from Indiana
Cleveland - Governor of New York
Arthur - VP
Garfield - Congressman and Senator from Ohio
Hayes - Congressman from Ohio
Grant - General of the Army
Johnson - VP, Congressman, Senator
Lincoln - Illinois Legislator
Buchanon - Senator and Congressman from Pennsylvania
Pierce - Senator and Congressman from New Hampshire
Fillmore - VP, Congressman, Comptroller of New York
Taylor - General of the Army
Polk - Congressman and Speaker of the House, Governor of Tennessee
Tyler - VP, Senator & Congressman from Virginia
Harrison - General of the Army, Governor of Indiana Territories
Van Buren - VP, Secretary of State, Senator from New York
Jackson - General, Congressman, Senator
Adams - Senator, Ambassador, Secretary of State
Monroe - Senator from Virginia
Madison - Virgia Assemblyman, Continental Congressman, Secretary of State
Jefferson - VP, Ambassador, Secretary of State, Writer of the Declaration of Independence
Adams - VP, Ambassador
Washington - Virginia Assemblyman, Continental Congressman, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, Father of a Nation

Summary - Of the 42 men who have become President, all but 6 (Eisenhower, Hoover, Taft, Grant, Taylor, & Harrison) held previous elective office.

Of those six, 4 were national heroes as Generals of the Army, and only Taft and Hoover were elected from Cabinet positions. Also, among the Generals elected, three obtained their General status by being elected to that post in a time when Generals ran for the position rather than being merely promoted. So in actuality, only 3 Presidents had never held previous elective office - Taft, Hoover and Eisenhower.

Elevation to the rank of general was not through election. Throughout much of the 19th century volunteer units elected officers, including Colonels in the case of regiments. But general officers were typically appointed (either by the war department or state governors depending on whether they held federal or state commissions - 19th century ranks can be confusing...)

Taylor's career was largely in the regulars so I'm not sure if he ever stood election for rank. Not sure about Harrison. Grant had left the army at the outbreak of the civil war and was elected either captain or colonel (I forget which) by his Galena neighbors when they organized either a company or regiment (once again, I forget). His promotion to General was, I believe, in recognition for his perfomance at the battle of Belmont.

The line of succession is merely a catastrophic failsafe, to ensure that there are rules for maintaining government order if a calamity should take the lives of multiple executive-branch entites simultaneously.

Cheney's not going anywhere, and with a Democratic governor in Tennessee, Bush wouldn't appoint Frist before 2006. After that, Frist may retire anyway to run for President.

If a vacancy opened, Rice would indeed seem like a logical choice. She's probably Bush's closest advisor besides Cheney and possibly Rove.

The catastrophic line is Bush-Cheney-Hastert and then the President Pro Tem of the Senate, who I believe is currently Ted Stevens.

Also, I think it highly likely that Bush, having a VP and brother who aren't running, will do whatever he can to avoid being seen as openly backing any one candidate for the GOP nomination in 2008, although Bush being Bush he will probably make it known behind the scenes who he favors. That's another thing favoring Rice in the event of a vacancy, since Bush wouldn't want to pick someone who's likely to be running in 08.

"Could Condi get elected as President?" is a separate matter from the question "Would Bush appoint her as VP?" He seems to prefer people from his inner circle, and that makes Governors and Senators unlikely choices.

A man who ends up in the hospital because of a cold probably shouldn't be in a high stress job, and if I was Cheney's friend, I'd advise him to retire. Because if he doesn't, the office may end up vacant anyway.

I wonder if the VP confirmation vote is exempted from the filibuster rules? Given the bitterness of some of the Democratic dead-enders these days, I wouldn't put it past them to try to block a candidate who might tend to undermine some long-nurtured stereotypes about Republicans--Condi Rice certainly would fall into that category.

I think the real question is if Cheney is replaced, does Bush appoint a successor or a caretaker. IIRC, Nelson Rockefeller stated that he was just filling out the term and would not serve a new term.

Everyone who with Presidential Aspiriations who Bush doesn't pick to be VP will have an incentive to block the pick.

My guess he goes with a caretaker VP acceptable to Dems, maybe Dick Lugar.

. . . IIRC, Nelson Rockefeller stated that he was just filling out the term and would not serve a new term.

No. Rockefeller wanted to run along with Ford in 1976, but since Ford only barely survived a strong challenge for the nomination from Ronald Reagan, the conservatives were able to pressure him to dump Rockefeller for someone seen as a conservative VP nominee--Bob Dole.

A good source for the 25th Amendment is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment25/

If Cheney dies, gets too sick, or resigns, Bush can appoint a successor who has to be confirmed by both House and Senate. The Senate Democrats could filibuster to delay the confirmation vote, but unless Bush pick is outrageous (Ashcroft or Jeb Bush) I think it would just make them look silly. In particular, they wouldn't filibuster against a moderate black such as Condi Rice, not if they want to come out of the next election with enough seats left to be able to filibuster at all.

The real questions are: (1) will Cheney hang on or admit he's getting too ill for the job, and (2) if Cheney resigns, will Bush pick a successor or a placeholder? In regards to #1, it's past time for a reality check; if Cheney is anywhere near as sickly as it sounds in a job with almost no required work, he wouldn't survive a few weeks as President. In regards to #2, who would Bush want as a successor, and how hard would it be to get them past the Senate? If he wants to anoint Jeb as the 2008 candidate, I think he'll pick a placeholder (or stick with Cheney if possible), and promote Jeb within the party. Trying to appoint Jeb as VP would not only give the congressional Democrats a real issue ("nepotism", "family dynasty", "who do they think they are, kings?"), but cause some Republicans to defect - Jeb might even get voted down in both houses.

As long as the GOP is in bed with racist organizations such as Bob Jones Uni, there will _never_ be a Black president or vice president. Perhaps if the traditional Republicans (such as McCain) can wrestle control from Karl Rove and company, then there may be a chance. As it stands today, with Bob Jones III saying GW "owes" his followers, don't get your hopes up for a Colin or Condi VP appointment.

My memory accords with MarkM's.

I don't know whether "conservatives do take bigger risks with this kind of thing than liberals do anyway." Ferraro is the counter-example. I do think that conservatives are successful doing it more often, due to the "only Nixon could go to China" factor. [BTW, like how I worked Nixon in there?] To be elected as the first female CINC, the candidate will have to be perceived as tough as any man, maybe tougher, which would explain why Hillary went on the Armed Services Committee and has been notably hawkish these past few years.

I haven't read any of the comments. So, I'm going in blind.

The answer to your question is that the President can choose the next Vice President.

The successor clause refers to when the President dies, the Vice President steps in. And when the Vice President dies (if he hasn't chosen a successor yet) it then is the Speaker of the House and on and on. But the successor is only in reference to death/or can't do the duties of the president etc.

Now that I read the posts... I wish I didn't. I haven't come here for 4 months. I come back and see "SomeCallhimTimmy" back at it still spewing hate and accusations again.

Some need to grow up.

I mispoke...

I'm glad I read the posts because some people were insightful.

I will look at the posters name first and not read hateful people's posts.

TT Everyone L

"I don't know whether "conservatives do take bigger risks with this kind of thing than liberals do anyway." Ferraro is the counter-example."

Ferraro was a throwaway pick--everyone knew perfectly well Mondale was going to lose, and lose big, so the Dems had little to lose by picking her.

At the time she was picked, Ferraro was an obscure freshman congresswoman from a district on the Brooklyn-Queens border of New York City. Does that really sound like the Dems were serious about a "woman candidate"?

If you think that there is a chance in hell that Condi will be the Republican candidate in 2008, you are unbelievably out of touch with reality. Not a little bit, but rather at a "Maybe you shouldn't be driving," level. And I say this as someone whose party is in the grips of a similarly dire mania of its own: Obama in 2008 (which won't happen either, for slightly different reasons).

I think the belief springs from noble-ish desires, though. And I'd welcome the attempt. But if you really believe it's a possibility, set up a book - there are a lot of stupid Democrats out there who will take the bet at 1-8 odds (the slightly less-stupid ones will wait two years, till the Condi mania brings the odds down). You can't stop those idiot Dems from thinking nasty or inaccurate things about your party, but at least you can make some money on it.

Okay, Tim -- what do you mean? Do you mean that Condi will not run for President because it's impractical logistically? Or are you still banging the "Condi's black so the GOP hates her" drum? Don't hold back ;-)

If you're saying that it's impractical for her to run, I agree entirely. She would have start her campaign apparatus now, President is a bad first elective office, sure, sure. If you're saying the latter -- and I think you are -- then we shall agree to disagree.

As others have pointed out, if the VP dies or leaves office, the President nominates someone to be VP, and both Houses of Congress must confirm the position (separately, not in a joint session). Interestingly, prior to the passage of the 25th Amendment, the President was not required to attempt to fill the position of VP should it become vacant, and I'm fairly sure that such actually happened at least once.

Klug:

I don't think I was coy or ambiguous - the Republican party won't select anyone who is black, female, and long-time unmarried as its Presidential nominee in '08. I'm sort of short-answering this, but...

This isn't a matter of logistics, etc., and it doesn't depend on rampant racism (or sexism or homophobia (which you neglected to mention for some reason)) in the Republican party. At worst it depends on a belief that there are (to limit it, for the moment, to one vector) a sufficient number of racists who vote in the Republican primaries in certain specific states (e.g., South Carolina) to tip an election. At best, it means that there are a sufficient number of people (primary/state conditions) who are uncomfortable enough with, for example, affirmative action, that when they select among primary candidates whose policies will look nearly identical, they will choose someone who didn't benefit from affirmative action (and thus is susceptible to arguments in its favor).

But, as I said, I could be wrong. In my heart of hearts, I never thought the country would chose a President who claimed the right to throw US citizens in indefinite detention without counsel or hearing; I was wrong about that. So set up a book. If Condi looks logistically improbably, collect the field of black, "long-time unmarried," or openly-gay Americans into one candidate for the Republican nominee in '08; you'll still find lots of Democrats willing to take that bet 1-20 odds. (Just the nomination - they don't have to win the general). Include women in the bet, and (at a guess) you'll see the odds drop to 1-5, 2-11.

You're a true believer, and you're probably better positioned to know the hearts and minds of the various primary voters than me or other Dems. Make the book and make some money off your knowledge advantage; that's the American way.

(If you do it, remember that most of the money won't come in until early '07, so you have some time to set this up).

Baklava - just want to let you know that I looked carefully through Tim's post and I just couldn't pick out anything hateful - he disagreed with you but I thought that is what blogs are all about.

I did see you calling him some names however - do you think maybe it's your problem, not his?

re: history's monsters. mr. nixon killed a lot of people in vietnam and cambodia, lest we forget.

(i tried, i really tried, but i could not let it pass. sorry)

Wow. I wasn't even aware that Nixon FOUGHT in Vietnam!

(I didn't even try to let it pass)

Tim:

First of all, I'm not aware that I'm a true believer. Anyway, I'm surprised about the scare quotes with "long-time unmarried" -- do you really think Condi Rice is a lesbian? I really wasn't aware of that -- if you have some evidence for that, I'd sure be interested in that.

Nevertheless, we shall see in '07, as you say. If this blog is still around, we'll talk about it then.

Klug:

"I'm surprised about the scare quotes with "long-time unmarried" -- do you really think Condi Rice is a lesbian?"

I have no idea whether she's a lesbian or not; it won't matter. At issue is the extent to which her life will support such claims. I note that, despite the SC phone calls, McCain did not have an illegitimate black baby; it no doubt helped that he did have an adopted daughter with dark skin. I used the scare quotes to indicate that it stood in for the larger category of "life stories that might be a result of homosexuality" - this could include a politician who was divorced and immediately started living with someone (as a roommate) of the same gender and never appeared to date, for example.

The best she could do in primary season would be, "I won't dignify that with an answer," and I suspect that an important minority of Republican primary voters are more comfortable with that answer for foresworn coke use than for possible lesbianianism.

I could be wrong, but I really don't think the "push polling" phone calls that we saw in SC was the tipping point of that race. It was the combined open sucker punching of McCain by the Bush campaign (McCain is anti-veteran, etc.) and Bush's pivot to him being a "reformer with results." You seem to think that all South Carolinians (yes, an important state in the GOP primaries.) are banjo-plucking race-haters. Oh, well. (yes, yes, you didn't say anything about banjos.)

I might add that the GOP has accepted divorced people as their champion before. It's a stretch to 'openly gay', but I think you underestimate the data-discrimination abilities of the GOP base.

Tim,

Normally I agree with you, but "long time unmarried" is a bit over the line. The fringe Republican wing of my family knows her well and I can possitively confirm that she is married to her career but dates men.

OK. I'm really not sure why this is confusing, because I think I'm making a pretty straightforward case based on what I think are pretty non-crazy assumptions. To wit:

1. In the set of all Republican primary voters, there exists a subset of voters who are sufficiently uncomfortable with (choose: race-based identity politics or African-Americans, gender-based identity politics or women in power, sexual-identity politics) that, given a choice between two candidates who are identical on the issues, those voters will chose to limit the effect of that trait that they are uncomfortable with by choosing the person least likely to be effected by such a trait - i.e., not Condi.

That subset of voters will exist in sufficient numbers in a few (not all) early primary states such that they can tip an election and thus effect the viability of that candidate.

Note that this doesn't require that all, or even a substantial number of, Republicans be racists or misogynists or homophobes. Strictly speaking, it doesn't require that any of them have such characteristics - only that they are uncomfortable enough with appeals to identity politics that they don't want to put someone in the WH who is even slightly more likely to find such appeals convincing.

2. Again, I don't know if Condi's gay. I don't care. I really, really don't. (I should note, for Kate's sake, that Rock Hudson was married). I'm arguing that someone could make a claim that she was gay, and it wouldn't be immediately refuted by her husband and kids (though that's clearly not a perfect refutation). I'm arguing that it's at least possible that there exists someone who wants the presidency badly enough he would unscrupulously use such a claim to increase his advantage.

Look at the recent Atlantic Monthly article on Karl Rove which suggests that he started a whispering campaign claiming a rival candidate was a pedophile; the agar on which the rumor grew was the fact that the candidate did volunteer work with kids. Now, I don't know if that accusation against Rove is true. But even if someone made it up, isn't it possible that "if you can dream it, you can do it" works for bad things as well as good things?

3. I have said, several times, I might be wrong about the ability to put together a "tipping-coalition" based on Condi's race, gender, and possible (as it is possible for all of us, incl. the marrieds) sexual orientation. I've said that Klug may well be in a better position to judge this than I am. And I've suggested that he make some money off of it.

Where, exactly, is the controversy in any of this?

Klug, are you arguing that there are no people who vote in Republican primaries (they might well vote in Democratic primaries, too) who are pretty uncomfortable with a President who is (a) African American, (b) female, or (c) gay? Or are you arguing that they represent such a small minority of those voters (in the already restricted pool of Republican primary voters in early primary states) that they couldn't tip an election?

If that's your argument, I don't buy it. I don't particularly buy it along a couple of those vectors for Democrats, FWIW. But as I said above, I might be wrong.

Tim: If Rice gets the full support of the Bushes, I doubt that it matters whether or not a few Republicans would vote against Rice in the primaries because she is black, or a woman, or unmarried. If the Bush machine could get W nominated in 2000 without the extra influence of a sitting President, they can get damn near anyone they want nominated in 2008. The real questions are whether they've got someone else in mind already, and whether Rice is going to be turn out to be conservative enough and politically-minded enough to get the nod.

And most of all, it matters how she comes out looking in the next four years. She's going to be the next Secretary of State. It seems like a job that could be as visible as the Veep, and a far better test of one's management abilities, but I only remember one person who went straight from that job to election as President, and Madison was a long time ago. Were there others?

A point of obviousness: I find it delicious that it's the act of a Republican president maligned by many opponents as dumb, racist, monstrous, any two, or all three, that has even made this discussion possible. Dr. Rice is not going to run in 2008, I wager, because of her lack of elected office - for that reason only, I believe she'll be seen as not the strongest candidate the party could muster. But for that reason only. She has everything else going for her: brains, credentials, credibility, experience, a great life story - she's even telegenic. AND she isn't subject to the verbal mishaps of the President, nor does she have an annoying voice like his, which should please some posters inordinately.

Let me take one step backward from my statement that her lack of elected office will be the only strike against Dr. Rice: As a long-ago Bloom County said, the first black President will be a conservative - except that I'll amend it to "a conservative man." But the very fact that Dr. Rice is a credible candidate says a whole mouthful about what the Republican party is about, versus what the Dems say (and just possibly, believe) it's about.

Markm:

You could absolutely be right. I doubt it, but it would be worth your while to find out.

If you have any influence in the Republican party, get them to convince the Bush team to run an African American as the nominee. If you can get even 35% of the black vote consistently (and black presidential nominee will get that for you consistently) without losing your white (and specifically white male) advantage, you will destroy the Democrats as a competitive party for as long as the mind can imagine. Too much of mythos is built around the civil rights movement for us to retool quickly.

Do it. If it can be done (and I really, really, really don't think it can), you should do it. We might as well get destroyed earlier rather than later.

Jamie:

Well, if you say the Republican party has no credibility problem on race issues, it must be true. It's only those stupid African Americans who seem to disagree. Dumbheads.

Cripes - go back to Dawson's Creek.

Jamie:

That was out of line. Sorry. I'm afraid I react to naivety and small kittens the same way; with irritation. I'd pull the comment if I could.

It's worth noting that I like Dawson's Creek.

I can't help thinking that the people arguing with Tim are blinded by the recent election. Guys, does anybody HONESTLY believe that one of the strong sources of Republican votes are not people uncomfortable with minorities?

Note that I didn't say racists and I am not accusing anyone of deliberate bigotry, but for lord's sake, haven't any of you been to Georgia - or Alabama - or Mississippi - or (pick the state) and seen the Civil War flags? Or remember the Willie Horton commercials?

Now, would it stop them for voting for Condi if she was endorsed by Bush? - that's another question.

People like Condi. She's an unorthodox choice because she hasn'd held elected office, but it might work: this lady is very, very popular in the GOP. (And let's recall that Maggie Thatcher set the precedent back in the 80s.)

And a lot of Republicans would love to vote for a black candidate--if she were qualified--in order to refute these perpetual, nebulous, and false charges of us harboring racists. It would be delicious for the party of Lincoln to bring this country its first black President.

Attila:

"And a lot of Republicans would love to vote for a black candidate--if she were qualified--in order to refute these perpetual, nebulous, and false charges of us harboring racists."

Just a suggestion, but along the lines of "the journey of a thousand miles...," it might be best to first elect another Republican African-American to a federal office. Since (I think) Watts left, I don't think you have any left. And based on the the sketchy Interweb information I could find, it looks like you have about 50 Republican African-Americans who are presently in elected office at any level. Nationwide. Might want to up that number too.

But these are just notes; do with them what you will. I look forward to Condi's inauguration in '09, and even look forward to missing all the money I'll have lost to Klug's book.

Dawson's Creek, really... My personal character flaw is Battle of the Planets (anybody? anybody?).

Once again, I post while too frazzled to make my point well. I don't mean to imply that Reps have no credibility problem where race (or feminism, or homosexuality, or pick your "minority" group) is concerned - only that that's not what we're about. (I might add that the Dems share the credibility problem, albeit possibly to a lesser extent.) We are not the party of intolerance, which seems to be the picture painted by many Dems in positions to have their voices heard.

However, I don't think that it's in the interests of either the party or (as should be everyone's overriding concern) the nation to "put up" an African-American Presidential nominee, or a woman, or someone who is openly gay, or any other "minority" representative, unless that person is the best we can produce and "electable." There are parts of the country where an African-American would not be considered electable... yet. By some members of either major party. That will change. The fact that Dr. Rice follows Gen. Powell as Secretary of State in a Republican administration rather heavy with Southerners (OK, I'm a Yank, I lump in Texas with the South - that should really bug some Texans, I bet) should enlighten some who believe that the entire South is full of bigots who can't see beyond their noses (another tautology; I seem to be full of them).

I spoke in pure joy that Dr. Rice was finally getting her due (I was hoping for her to have this position in GWB#1, though it's hard to argue with Gen. Powell's credentials). And in pure joy that this discussion can even happen - can you imagine it twenty years ago? I'm not even old yet!

Okay, Tim, you've done it. I'm tired of you insisting that I'm saying that Condi's going to run and win in 2008. That's silly; you know it, I know it, the American people know it. I believe that it's logistics and impracticality; you think race (and lesbianism?!) factors into it as well. Fine.

But let's make this fun: Let's go over to longbets.org and set up a bet about the base issue. I'm a poor grad student (really -- if you want, I'll reply from my university e-mail) and I can only afford the minimum $200 bet. You and I can split the registration fee, even. Here's my suggested prediction:

"By January 20, 2025, an African-American will have been elected President of the United States. He or she will be the general election nominee of the Republican Party."

Here's my e-mail: dnjco@yahoo.com

Interested?

BTW, if there are any other people willing to help defray my side of the bet, I'd be greatly appreciative. My girlfriend/intended likely would be unhappy to know that I'm siphoning off her engagement ring money to this purpose.

Whether the Republican base likes or dislikes Ms. Rice is completely beside the point.

She will not run and the party organization will see to it that they can field an electable canditate in 2008: popular in the South, conservative, but not too much, holder of elected office (preferable governor of a large state), male, caucasian, perhaps with a hispanic crossover (hispanic is the new black, people).

If they could they might try fielding the Gubernator, but they can't since there's no way to re-amend & change the constitution in that short a time (and Arnie probably is too liberal for the GOP's rank & file to boot)

Klug:

Due credit for the first step in towards the "Put Up or Shut Up" philosophy I think Republicans need to embrace. It's the first step to holding people (including the President) accountable.

But nobody sensible bets 20 years out. Things can change too quickly; the Voting Rights Act was only 40 years ago, for example. I have a couple of alternate proposals regarding '08 (no, it's not Condi). I'll send you an e-mail shortly on this. I'm a little uncomfortable arranging a specific bet on someone else's site. I'll be in touch.

Finally, don't misunderstand the strength of virulence required for my argument. Look at the numbers. African Americans are probably between 15% and 20% of the Democratic base. It's a lot easier for a Democratic African-American candidate (assuming African-Americans would vote 100% for said candidate) to get through a primary. Even if non-blacks in either party were equally disinclined to vote for an African-American. (E.g., in a three way race, where 35% represents a winner, we only need 1/4 non-black voters to vote for the African American candidate. Republicans would need more than 1/3 non-black voters to vote for the African-American candidate. That's a big jump - close to three times the size of Bush's "mandate").

Bush stole some Democrat thunder, I think, with his appointment first of Powell and now of Rice. Has everyone heard about the "progressive talk" personality in Madison, WI, who called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" and Sec. Powell "Uncle Tom" this week? (John Sylvester, WTDY, by the way.) What the heck is that about? Just as scandalous, the local NAACP spokesperson said she couldn't comment until she heard his remarks in their entirety. I mean, really, what could context actually add? That they really are his aunt and uncle, and they go by their middle names or something? Whose side is the NAACP on, anyway?

Silly question. Everyone knows whose side they're on.

Full disclosure: apparently, Sylvester claims he was referring to Harry Belafonte's remarks concerning the "requirement" of subservience on the part of African-Americans to gain admission to the White House. So whose side is Belafonte on? It's not every day that an African-American is SecState - no, it's just every day for the past four years, and every day for the next four. It's mighty hard to credit Democratic Party claims of greater sensitivity to and superiority in issues of race when the racial epithets start to come out, simply because the "minority" person who has achieved a high position happens to be Republican. (I'm a little steamed. I now wish you all a good weekend. Must... escape... blogosphere.... Drowning in... information and.... fascinating commentary....)

Comments are Closed.