WI Condi with the Democrats

[Max Sinister]

What if Condoleezza Rice had told somewhen "Nah, I don't want to be in the same party as Strom Thurmond is" and joined the Democrats? Would she've worked for Carter / Clinton (assuming they came to power as in OTL), and what would she've done? Would Clinton try to have something with her?

 

[carlton_bach]

Vice Presidential material, I'd say. Eventually, at least. I don't know about Clinton, but I think he had the sense not to try anything with important White House staffers. Condi is the kind of person to take things personally, I gather.

Now, the interesting bit would be when various rather set-in-their-ways rulers of this world have to smile and shake hands with a black woman in power. The expression on Assad's face alone..

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Not with the Dems. Condi isn't a professional victim, she has no interest in the Democratic left wing's 'blame america first' policy, and (best of all) she isn't willing to cowtow to the PC crowd.

I would love to see Cheney (who I have never liked) dumped in favor of Condi, and I know a great many others in the GOP who agree. Sadly, this is not likely (Bush shares his father's unfortunate overloyalty to family retainers)...though one can hope...

 

[zoomar]

Not with the Dems. Condi isn't a professional victim, she has no interest in the Democratic left wing's 'blame america first' policy, and (best of all) she isn't willing to cowtow to the PC crowd.

I would love to see Cheney (who I have never liked) dumped in favor of Condi, and I know a great many others in the GOP who agree. Sadly, this is not likely (Bush shares his father's unfortunate overloyalty to family retainers)...though one can hope...

We Republicans sure can. But I have to agree with Mike Johnson (and he hasn't even posted yet!) that Rice might ultimately feel uncomfortable being that closely associated with a party which has been taken over by some of the most radical elements on the right (as have the Dems from the left since McGovern). Given her no-nonsense views on foreign affairs and military issues, she could never be a democrat, though. Oh, for the rise of a new Centrist party including Powell, McClain, Rice.

 

[Leo Caesius]

We Republicans sure can. But I have to agree with Mike Johnson (and he hasn't even posted yet!) that Rice might ultimately feel uncomfortable being that closely associated with a party which has been taken over by some of the most radical elements on the right (as have the Dems from the left since McGovern). Given her no-nonsense views on foreign affairs and military issues, she could never be a democrat, though. Oh, for the rise of a new Centrist party including Powell, McClain, Rice.

Didn't McCain just say that he was open to being Kerry's VP? At the very least, he said that he would seriously consider it, in the unlikely event that he was asked. I guess it's time for the RNC to crank up the mighty Wurlitzer again, and slam him as some sort of latent Trotskyite.

I don't agree that the Dems have been taken over by the most radical elements on the left. After all, the last time we had a Democratic president, he took all of the Republican crowd pleasers (Balanced budget, welfare reform, aggressive foreign policy, free trade, etc. etc.) and incorportated them into his platform. Personally, I think that's why the "Blame America's Ex-President First" crowd hates Clinton so much. And Kerry? A radical leftist? Just listen to his speeches. If you can follow them without falling fast asleep, you won't hear anything controversial from the standpoint of either party. These claims, that the Democrats are a group of racist, anti-American crypto-communists, are just so much hot air.

I remember reading that Newt Gingrich, of all people, loved making trouble and upsetting the status quo. If I'm not mistaken, he once said that, had the Republicans been in power when he first got into politics, he would have been a Democrat. A politically centrist, hawkish Condi Rice is no more unbelievable than a Democratic Newt Gingrich.

 

[Mike Collins]

Rice would have no significant role in government if she were a Democrat. Although Dems claim to be the spokesmen of all the poor and down trodden, they never put such people in leadership positions. Why would they? Its not like blacks will vote Republican if there arent enough black faces on the cabinet.........

 

[zoomar]

Didn't McCain just say that he was open to being Kerry's VP? At the very least, he said that he would seriously consider it, in the unlikely event that he was asked. I guess it's time for the RNC to crank up the mighty Wurlitzer again, and slam him as some sort of latent Trotskyite.

I don't agree that the Dems have been taken over by the most radical elements on the left. After all, the last time we had a Democratic president, he took all of the Republican crowd pleasers (Balanced budget, welfare reform, aggressive foreign policy, free trade, etc. etc.) and incorportated them into his platform. Personally, I think that's why the "Blame America's Ex-President First" crowd hates Clinton so much. And Kerry? A radical leftist? Just listen to his speeches. If you can follow them without falling fast asleep, you won't hear anything controversial from the standpoint of either party. These claims, that the Democrats are a group of racist, anti-American crypto-communists, are just so much hot air.

I remember reading that Newt Gingrich, of all people, loved making trouble and upsetting the status quo. If I'm not mistaken, he once said that, had the Republicans been in power when he first got into politics, he would have been a Democrat. A politically centrist, hawkish Condi Rice is no more unbelievable than a Democratic Newt Gingrich.

I don't completely disagree with you, but still believe that the Republicans have strayed no farther from the centrist Republicanism of Ike and Nixon than the Democrats have from the centrist "hawkish" Democratism of FDR, JFK and LBJ - which is to say that both parties have strayed so far from the center that those Americans believing in a continuation of New Deal activism, a strong "America first" foreign policy/military stance, fiscal responsibility, and the upholding of traditional "communitarian" social values have no place to go. I find a lot to admire in Kerry, but he is heir to a party which I believe has sold its soul to the 60's and the hostility to the military and social/sexual permissiveness that decade engendered. I also find a lot to admire in the direct GW's directness and simplicity, but he is heir to a brand of republicanism which has become excessively intolerant, small minded, and in the pocket of some of the worst corporate offenders.

For the first time since 1972 (when I voted for McGovern in my youthful silliness, God forbid), I may not vote in the presidential election.

 

[Ian the Admin]

We Republicans sure can. But I have to agree with Mike Johnson (and he hasn't even posted yet!) that Rice might ultimately feel uncomfortable being that closely associated with a party which has been taken over by some of the most radical elements on the right (as have the Dems from the left since McGovern). Oh, for the rise of a new Centrist party including Powell, McClain, Rice.

What timeline are you posting from? In my timeline, the Democratic party did the opposite of what it apparently did in your timeline. Namely, in the 90s it made such a dramatic beeline for the center under the "New Democrat" movement that it alienated a lot of left wing people, and now constantly suffers backlashes of support from the people who can't stand the "Clinton Republicrats", and voted first for Ralph Nader in the last election, then supported Howard Dean in the recent democratic primary.

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--What if Condoleezza Rice had told somewhen "Nah, I don't want to be in the same party as Strom Thurmond is" and joined the Democrats?---

When it comes to voting in the US most African-Americans ask themselves a variant of this question.Thats why despite having a large number of social and religious conservatives African Americans support the Democrats year after year. It's pretty simple really -how could a party that Strom Thrumond and his ilk are comfortable in have the best interests of African-Americans at heart? Of course it should be noted that this makes the motives of black people in the Repulican party suspect to many in the black community. I dont think that you would have a successful or politically viable nationwide black candidate who didnt have the support of most of the black community.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

zoomar: My guess is that McCain is (once again) getting his jollies by letting the press tell him what a great guy he is. The idea of him EVERY running as a Dem VP candidate (he LOATHES Kerry, why would he want to be his second banana?) is more wishful thinking by the press, egged on by the Dems who are trying to find SOMETHING even vaguely exciting about Kerry.

Kerry's positions on trade, nat defense, reverse discrimination, etc. have been all over the place, but they have all ended up as pretty much standard dem-lefty fare. Please, all of the Dems out there spare me quotes from the late 80s, Kerry has changed his positions so many times that only quotes from 2003 and later (he is the only politician I know of who's personal values have expiration dates...) will be considered.

There are a lot of positions that Bush has taken that I don't agree wtih (notably gay marriage and stem cell research, but his support for tariffs doesn't please me as well), but anyone who thinks that this is far right simply hasn't ever seen a real far right winger. For me, the war on terror (and it is a war, not a police action....even the idea that Kerry could believe such drivel is frightening...) is the absolute priority, everytrhing else is (reluctantly) negotiable.

Now, that rant aside (and I apologize for the rant), this leaves Condi clearly in the GOP camp, and a very viable candidate. The problem is that Bush won't get rid of Cheney, and Condi isn't well known on domestic issues, so the candidacy isn't too likely...sigh...

As for Ian's comments re: those dissatisfied with the Dems...well we saw what a powerhouse those Deaniacs turned out to be, didn't we?

 

[Michael E Johnson]

Rice would have no significant role in government if she were a Democrat. Although Dems claim to be the spokesmen of all the poor and down trodden, they never put such people in leadership positions. Why would they? Its not like blacks will vote Republican if there arent enough black faces on the cabinet.........

Of course the reverse is true that blacks still arent going to vote Republican no matter how many black faces there are in a Republican cabinet. The black electorate knows which party has an agenda and an attitude thats more friendly to their interests and black faces in high places wont change that. Of course it should be noted that Democrats often field black or female candidates in statewide elections(where white voters are almost always in the majority like Kirk in Texas in 2002) and they are usually defeated by white male Republicans. To me this says more about the voters than it does about the Democratic commitment to diversity. The VAST majority of all elected black politicans and judges in the US on the local ,state and federal ( 100% of the Congressional Black Caucus)levels are Democrats-to me and most African-Americans this trumps a few black GOP faces in powerful positions.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I don't completely disagree with you, but still believe that the Republicans have strayed no farther from the centrist Republicanism of Ike and Nixon than the Democrats have from the centrist "hawkish" Democratism of FDR, JFK and LBJ - which is to say that both parties have strayed so far from the center [...]

For the first time since 1972 (when I voted for McGovern in my youthful silliness, God forbid), I may not vote in the presidential election.

I actually didn't expect much in the way of agreement. I am, however, glad to see that you dignified my response.

Contrary to what some may think, I'm quite conservative. This is very much a product of my upbringing - all of the males in my staunchly Catholic family are former military - in fact, my father served in Texas in the National Guard at the same time as the President, and right up until around 1975. Even though I was educated at a very liberal university, somehow I found myself drawn to the Campus Republicans. This wasn't because of my background; I was attracted to them because they thought for themselves, in an environment which made no bones about disagreeing vociferously with them. I had a lot of difficulty justifying my studies (the Near East, particularly its languages ancient and modern) to my family until 9/11, when my aunt asked me if I was going to enlist as an Arabic language translator. When I told her that I was going to complete my graduate studies, she said "Well, you realize that makes you a traitor, doesn't it?" This has been a leitmotif for me over the last three years.

I won't vote for the President, and neither will anyone in my family, AFAIK. My grandmother, easily the most conservative member of the family, who has never voted Democrat in her life, told me that she doesn't like him one bit, and has said explicitly that she won't vote for him. I can't see her voting Democrat; I think that it's likely that she'll just stay at home on Election Day. She doesn't seem to hate Kerry as much as she hated Clinton, but then again, I haven't discussed it with her lately.

 

[Ian the Admin]

BTW sociometric research is clear about what's happened to the two US political parties over the past couple of decades. When you take all issues into account and map the movement of the parties in the "left vs. right" directions of the resulting multidimensional space, it turns out the democrats have stayed pretty much where they were and the Republicans have moved substantially to the right.

 

[Grey Wolf]

What timeline are you posting from? In my timeline, the Democratic party did the opposite of what it apparently did in your timeline. Namely, in the 90s it made such a dramatic beeline for the center under the "New Democrat" movement that it alienated a lot of left wing people, and now constantly suffers backlashes of support from the people who can't stand the "Clinton Republicrats", and voted first for Ralph Nader in the last election, then supported Howard Dean in the recent democratic primary.

Very much like Clinton's clone Blair. The left wing (i.e. main body) of the Labour Party only support him coz he is Labour, coz anyone else is worse, and coz they hope in the longer run Blair will fall and someone better (eg Brown, or even Blunkett) will succeed him

Grey Wolf

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Ian, simply take the policies of say JFK (the real one) and compare them to those of any democratic candidate today. The idea that the Dems haven't moved WAY to the left is simply nonsense, though I will certainly concede that the Republicans have moved to the right as well. By the way, I don't particularly find this a healthy trend for either party, but it is hardly a new thing.

 

[zoomar]

What timeline are you posting from? In my timeline, the Democratic party did the opposite of what it apparently did in your timeline. Namely, in the 90s it made such a dramatic beeline for the center under the "New Democrat" movement that it alienated a lot of left wing people, and now constantly suffers backlashes of support from the people who can't stand the "Clinton Republicrats", and voted first for Ralph Nader in the last election, then supported Howard Dean in the recent democratic primary.

You are right as regards economic policy. In that perspective Clinton indeed governed as a moderate Republican. However, under Clinton, the party continued to run to the left on a host of social issues (extreme pro-abortion policy, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights) and never adequately shed its McGovernite-Carterite anti-military stance. If we could talk to JFK and LBJ, I'd bet they would be shocked at some of the causes and positions supported on modern demorcatic party platforms. Likewise for Ike, Nixon and the modern Republican platforms, which have run almost as fast to the right with extreme pro-life, anti-environmental, and Christian Right issues.

 

[Mike Collins]

--What if Condoleezza Rice had told somewhen "Nah, I don't want to be in the same party as Strom Thurmond is" and joined the Democrats?---

When it comes to voting in the US most African-Americans ask themselves a variant of this question.Thats why despite having a large number of social and religious conservatives African Americans support the Democrats year after year. It's pretty simple really -how could a party that Strom Thrumond and his ilk are comfortable in have the best interests of African-Americans at heart?

You know, I never can understand the irrational hatred black people have for Strom Thurmond. The man did a complete 180 but nobody will give him credit. If it was just that he was a segregationist at one time, I could understand that. But you never hear blacks criticize Sen. Byrd for his KKK activities or Sen. Hollings for putting a Confederate flag up on the South Carolina Capitol building. Just makes me wonder.......

 

[Mike Collins]

Of course it should be noted that Democrats often field black or female candidates in statewide elections(where white voters are almost always in the majority like Kirk in Texas in 2002) and they are usually defeated by white male Republicans. To me this says more about the voters than it does about the Democratic commitment to diversity.

Personally, skin color means little to me in voting. The moment I see the word "Democrat" after someone's name, I visualize a hippie who wants to tax every last cent I own and cave in to dangerous enemy foreigners at the drop of a hat. I'll refuse to vote for a white, yellow, back or purple person if they are Democrats.


But Michael, I think you hit on something. Blacks vote for those they percieve will bring them better outcomes. As do I. Only difference is my preception is absolutely right and theirs may not be so !

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---You know, I never can understand the irrational hatred black people have for Strom Thurmond. The man did a complete 180 but nobody will give him credit. If it was just that he was a segregationist at one time, I could understand that. But you never hear blacks criticize Sen. Byrd for his KKK activities or Sen. Hollings for putting a Confederate flag up on the South Carolina Capitol building. Just makes me wonder.......----


This answer to this should be obvious-its not just about the leading men its about the other party members and the party itself. The GOP has determined ( correctly) over the last 40 years that it can receive the votes of whites in Dixie who were and are sympathetic to segreagtion by a barely concealed pandering to old segregationist views and attitudes like those of Thurmond. The Democratic party may have some of its own segrgationists but the party agenda and most of the remaining white Democratic party members in Dixie are no longer in line with their views. The same cant be said about the GOP. You probably arent going to see any more Byrds and Hollings from the Democrats but their are plenty of young Thrumonds coming up in the GOP. Of course they can no longer (usually)say such things in public but the views of many whites in Dixie from Thurmonds generation to his grandchildrens generation are the same- and the vast majority of them are in the GOP not the Democrats.

 

[David Howery]

Ian> Ok, now you're confusing me. On another thread awhile back, you said that some study you'd read noted that conservatives are not increasing in numbers. Now on this one, you said that the GOP has moved to the right. What gives? Are the conservatives increasing, or is the GOP moving to the right just a little so they don't quite qualify as conservatives (if you can split political hairs that fine )?
A lot of this is flying in the face of what I'd always thought of as the US political scene. Everything I'd read and seen indicated that the far wings of both parties are declining, and the moderates are gaining in numbers. The liberals and conservatives are shrinking minorities.. still important, but still minorities....