Heeeeeeere's Condi! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sen · 11-15-2004, 04:27 PM

Condoleeza Rice is going to be the nominee for Secretary of State. I'm sure that because Bush is a Republican, she will be considered just another "token" even though that will make the 2nd consecutive African American Sec. of State and the first African American woman.

Here's the scoop:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=254647

mirevolver · 11-15-2004, 04:45 PM

I was hoping it would be Rudolph Giuliani, but oh well. Condi is still a good pick.

smooth · 11-15-2004, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sen

Condoleeza Rice is going to be the nominee for Secretary of State. I'm sure that because Bush is a Republican, she will be considered just another "token" even though that will make the 2nd consecutive African American Sec. of State and the first African American woman.

Here's the scoop:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=254647

I wouldn't judge whether someone is a token based on political affiliation.

But I want to point out how some people understand tokens to operate. Now you may have all kinds of respect for her intelligence or activities, but you didn't list them.

You listed that she was a) black and b) a woman.

People use the characteristics they supposedly are blind to in order to show that they are actually irrelevant.

That's how she operates as a token.

Paq · 11-15-2004, 06:45 PM

just announced on fox news that condi was gonna be sec of state following powell...

if you heard it on fox, must be true...

Ustwo · 11-15-2004, 06:47 PM

Good for her, shes smarter then Powell.

tecoyah · 11-15-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Good for her, shes smarter then Powell.

Out of Curiousity......what measure of intellect are you using for this statement?

I only ask, because I have found Mr. Powells intellegence to be , quite impressive, and have found Rice to be somewhat weaker in this area.....perhaps it is just my impression though.

Tarl Cabot · 11-15-2004, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Out of Curiousity......what measure of intellect are you using for this statement?

I only ask, because I have found Mr. Powells intellegence to be , quite impressive, and have found Rice to be somewhat weaker in this area.....perhaps it is just my impression though.

She graduated from college at age 19. Unlike Colin Powell, her achievements were apparently accomplished without the help of affirmative action.

Ustwo · 11-15-2004, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Out of Curiousity......what measure of intellect are you using for this statement?

I only ask, because I have found Mr. Powells intellegence to be , quite impressive, and have found Rice to be somewhat weaker in this area.....perhaps it is just my impression though.

College graduations aside, Powell to me just seemed like a lot more image and not a lot of substance. He has a way of saying things that commands respect, but I never felt there was a great intelligence or conviction. I'm not saying he is stupid by any means.

Rice on the other hand gets more bad press, but I think that press is due to the fact she owes nothing to the system in terms of affirmative action and she is very self assured. This scares her opponents who try to belittle her. Now raw intelligence alone is not enough for Secretary of State, but the state department needs a bit of a shake up and I'm willing to give her a chance.

smooth · 11-15-2004, 09:05 PM

I'm curious where you get information on whether Rice or Powell were recipients of affirmative action?

Regardless, both of them support it.

mo42 · 11-15-2004, 10:37 PM

Condi always looks angry and bitter in her pictures. I hope she isn't, those would be lousy traits for a diplomat. Bush seems to have picked her due to her continued loyalty to her policies.

Kalibah · 11-16-2004, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I'm curious where you get information on whether Rice or Powell were recipients of affirmative action?

Regardless, both of them support it.

Being that the vote of Hispanics is more important in the REpublican Party- Would it not be better to have a 'token' hispanic? Well I suppose there will be a Hispanic, but I doubt token ( estrauda is verry smart).

Republicans dont need the black vote. They never have had it, and I never see them getting it... So to me, the idea of a token black seems foolish

smooth · 11-16-2004, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Being that the vote of Hispanics is more important in the REpublican Party- Would it not be better to have a 'token' hispanic? Well I suppose there will be a Hispanic, but I doubt token ( estrauda is verry smart).

Republicans dont need the black vote. They never have had it, and I never see them getting it... So to me, the idea of a token black seems foolish

You mean like this:

Quote:

President Bush has nominated White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to be the next attorney general. Gonzales, who would become the nation's first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft

--From the liberal folks at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138160,00.html

Why is it that only conservatives on this board are refuting the implications of the appointment of minorities to key positions? Even more ridiculous is that they keep posting comments about one's race and/or gender as things that don't matter--yet that's usually the first or only thing out of their mouths about the nominees.

Evidently you need to read up on what a token is or does in some sociology of organization textbooks. It's not as though I made it up, shit, I didn't even bring it up.

You don't have the 'black vote' but you have the 'hispanic vote'? You just essentialized entire hetergeneous populations into two basic categories based on what you perceive to be phenotypical differences. Then you linked those traits you believe you would be able to distinguish in a crowd to political standpoint.

You are very confused about your own ideological assumptions. I suggest you contemplate that for a bit before responding to me in anger or frustration.

EDIT: fixed tags

host · 11-16-2004, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sen

Condoleeza Rice is going to be the nominee for Secretary of State. I'm sure that because Bush is a Republican, she will be considered just another "token" even though that will make the 2nd consecutive African American Sec. of State and the first African American woman.

Here's the scoop:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=254647

IMO, Rice is a war criminal with zero credibility on the world stage, and
she has plenty of company..............

Quote:

Iraq <a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/CIA-2-23-01.htm">CIA Director Tenent's Feb., 2001 Testimony to Congress</a>

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations' inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq's WMD programs.

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml">Feb. 4, 2004 The Man Who Knew</a>
Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.......

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show."
Greg Thielmann

Bush and his administration knew the truth but later misled and distorted the actual threat Saddam posed to the rest of the
world are press remarks from Colin Powell on Feb. 24:

Quote:

2001:"QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
Please take note that the above quote comes from a page on the
U.S. State Departments own website. <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>

Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:

Quote:

"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>

Ustwo · 11-16-2004, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Republicans dont need the black vote. They never have had it, and I never see them getting it... So to me, the idea of a token black seems foolish

1865 we did

ARTelevision · 11-16-2004, 07:22 AM

Powell and Rice. These are both two very good - yes, even great - individuals. The Dept. of State has been and will continue to be in good hands.

Sen · 11-16-2004, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I wouldn't judge whether someone is a token based on political affiliation.

But I want to point out how some people understand tokens to operate. Now you may have all kinds of respect for her intelligence or activities, but you didn't list them.

You listed that she was a) black and b) a woman.

People use the characteristics they supposedly are blind to in order to show that they are actually irrelevant.

That's how she operates as a token.

I absolutely do have a ton of respect for her. She has an amazing record of accomplishment in her life. I was simply pointing out what I have seen happen in the past when Republicans who are minorities ascend to high positions...for example, J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and now I'm predicting that Condi will be treated the same way by the media and the left.

Also, in reference to another comment made...Colin Powell attributes some of his early sucesses to Affirmative Action in his Autobiography.

djtestudo · 11-16-2004, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Powell and Rice. These are both two very good - yes, even great - individuals. The Dept. of State has been and will continue to be in good hands.

I think this is the best point in the thread.

roachboy · 11-16-2004, 08:59 AM

i dunno--i was teaching at stanford while rice was provost, and i was less than impressed with her. very much less than impressed. but she seemed of a piece with the place, if you factored in the hoover institution.

if you hang around academicworld long enough, you learn that factoids like "she graduated college when she was 19" are no more than factoids--past a certain point, they indicate nothing.

i am not surprised by her nomination--she seems closer to bush politically than powell did. and i suspect the smear-powell element that you see coming from the right of the right is a function of it being evident that powell was more moderate than bush. rather than say this, however, you get "powell was more style than substance".

which is par for the course.

Scipio · 11-16-2004, 09:18 AM

And Bush continues to stack the executive with loyalists. I suppose it's his decision.

Locobot · 11-16-2004, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dunno--i was teaching at stanford while rice was provost, and i was less than impressed with her. very much less than impressed. but she seemed of a piece with the place, if you factored in the hoover institution.

if you hang around academicworld long enough, you learn that factoids like "she graduated college when she was 19" are no more than factoids--past a certain point, they indicate nothing.

i am not surprised by her nomination--she seems closer to bush politically than powell did. and i suspect the smear-powell element that you see coming from the right of the right is a function of it being evident that powell was more moderate than bush. rather than say this, however, you get "powell was more style than substance".

which is par for the course.

excellent and true, I can remember Powell accepting the Sec. of State job in 2000 as being a great victory for the Republicans. When he failed to follow the Wolfowitz foreign policy or Rumsfeld military policy he was ostracized.

Rice was particularly unimpressive during the 9/11 hearings during which she refused to answer pointed questions and was easily flustered.

Although I may have disagreed with the cause, I found Powell to be a person of not a little substance and intelligence during the 1991 gulf war.

If I had been forced to give the presentation that Powell gave to the UN security council I would resign too. Powell's "good soldier" ethic seems to be the only thing that kept him from resigning much earlier.

mml · 11-16-2004, 01:40 PM

I have mixed feelings about the departure of Powell. I think that he was one of the few high ranking opposing/critical voices in this administration. That being said, he had virtually no effectiveness in forming or guiding policy and apparently went along with causes and passed along information he disagreeed with. I have a great personal respect for Mr. Powell and if he had decided to seek the presidency I might have crossed the aisle and voted for him. But, he has not been a truly effective Sec of State. He has been a diginified one, and one that has garnered the respect of the world, but that effectiveness and respect have not translated into success for the US.

I am not a fan of Dr. Rice. I think she has been far too partisan and not nearly objective enough as Nat. Sec. Advisor. I do, however, think she is qualified to take the helm at State and God knows I hope she can find a way to be successful. She is a much tougher negotiator than Powell, and perhaps that is what is needed. Fortunately, she is not another Neo-Conservative. My real fear is that Bush is merely surrounding himself with more people who will not disagree with him or his policies.

I had originally heard that there were three names being considered. Anyone know who those others were?

quicksteal · 11-16-2004, 01:58 PM

I'll be fine with Rice as the Sec. of State as long as the administration picks a new National Security Adviser that is not closely affiliated with Bush. So far, all of the new appointees have been close to him, and he's going to need internal opposition to be a successful President. Plus, it seems as though there's a problem with our southern border, and it would be good for a fiery outsider to confront the problem.

guy44 · 11-16-2004, 02:08 PM

The funny thing about this is, race really isn't an issue here. Powell was a very respected official who lent credibility, a high level of trust internationally, and an ability to reach out to Democrats to the Bush cabinet 4 years ago. Rice was respected by conservatives and her background in Russian affairs made her a great NSA...15 years ago. Actually, the Bush administration was stuck in the Cold War in hiring her. She was not prepared for the current threats and issues facing the U.S., such as WMD proliferation and asymmetrical warfare.

Powell disagreed privately a whole lot with many Bush administration policies, but was a loyal soldier who stuck by his commander-in-chief publicly. However, his more moderate views were utterly ignored by the neo-cons/Cheney group (which didn't really include Rice all that much) who heavily influenced Bush's foreign policy decisions. Powell was stuck: he and the state department were being kept out of the loop on damn near everything, while the Bushies conducted policies he disagreed with. In the end, his loyalty won out, as he never publicly chided Bush and even gave that awful presentation to the U.N., which was almost 100% filled with false information and officially destroyed any respect he had amongst liberals/Democrats. Eventually other officials were being sent to do jobs the Secretary of State should do, and he rode out the last of the first Bush term impotent, occasionally making private statements that got out, like the one in which he said he wouldn't support the Iraq war if he knew the WMD info was fake.

Rice, meanwhile, sorta went along with neocon/Cheney policies, and didn't disagree with them; she wasn't out of the loop, but she wasn't deeply involved with policy formation either. She is widely recognized as one of, if not the worst NSA ever with regard to policy coordination, which is essentially her job. As head of State, she'll be more in line with Bush's policies, which may bring the department back into the fold a little bit. On the other hand, she's a godawful leader with no track record of success with post-Soviet issues who isn't respected worldwide like Powell was and may not be a good Secretary of State. Plus, removing Powell essentially removes the last high-level cabinet opposition to Bush's radical policies.

So really, I don't know if discussing race should be an issue. This isn't about tokenism, or affirmative action (please, Powell was an excellent chair of the JCS, and a great general.) Accusing him of succeeding only through AA is ignorant.

tellumFS · 11-16-2004, 04:26 PM

I suppose we'll see what happens. Personally I find Condi to be a less than stellar selection, but who knows.

It would appear that this is a trend by the President to select more ideological and personally loyal cabinet ministers. While he does have the right to do this, I wonder how wise it is to dismiss someone like Powell that offered a different view than the Rumsfeld/Cheney group.

I don't blame Powell for resigning. Doing so in the middle of the first term would have killed his political career, so I understand why he waited (probably not because he was a "good soldier", that was the UN speech).

Sen · 11-18-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scipio

And Bush continues to stack the executive with loyalists. I suppose it's his decision.

Since when has any President NOT stacked his cabinet with loyalists? After all, it's HIS cabinet.

joeshoe · 11-19-2004, 01:51 AM

We should give Condi a chance. I respected Powell as Secretary of State, and I hope Condi can live up to the role she's filling. But who's taking her place as security advisor?

seretogis · 11-19-2004, 03:18 AM

What? Bush didn't choose Jimmy Carter instead? This is an outrage!@

Sen · 11-19-2004, 07:32 AM

...and so it begins. This is exactly what I"m talking about. "Aunt Jemima?!?" Seriously, people.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rk_2&printer=1

Radio Host Calls Rice 'Aunt Jemima'

Fri Nov 19,12:33 AM ET

By JAMES A. CARLSON, Associated Press Writer

MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state.

John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Rice has served as President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser and was named this week to replace the departing Colin Powell (news - web sites) as secretary of state.

Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.

He said Thursday night that he was referring to remarks by singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte that the price of admittance for blacks to the Bush White House was subservience.

As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence.

Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz called the remarks "racially insensitive," while Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., said in a statement he joined "all Wisconsinites in rejecting" the statements.

Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.

The station's corporate office received about 100 calls about his comments, Sylvester said.

He added that he has a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison's black community.

He said he was planning a giveaway on Friday's show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup. "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima," he said.

The incident came after a radio host in Milwaukee had his talk show taken off the air all of last week after he used word "wetback" to refer to undocumented Mexican immigrants, sparking protests from Hispanics.

powerclown · 11-19-2004, 08:27 AM

A 50lb. brain with a political outlook more in line with Bush and the rest of his administration. Worked with Bush Sr. as well. Understandable, and more than qualified. Good choice.

11-15-2004, 04:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
Sen Insane Location: Midwest	Heeeeeeere's Condi! Condoleeza Rice is going to be the nominee for Secretary of State. I'm sure that because Bush is a Republican, she will be considered just another "token" even though that will make the 2nd consecutive African American Sec. of State and the first African American woman. Here's the scoop: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=254647 __________________ "I want to announce my presence with authority!" "You want to what?" "I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

11-15-2004, 04:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
mirevolver Inspired by the mind's eye. Location: Between the darkness and the light.	I was hoping it would be Rudolph Giuliani, but oh well. Condi is still a good pick. __________________ Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

11-15-2004, 06:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	just announced on fox news that condi was gonna be sec of state following powell... if you heard it on fox, must be true... __________________ Live. Chris

11-15-2004, 06:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Good for her, shes smarter then Powell. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-15-2004, 09:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I'm curious where you get information on whether Rice or Powell were recipients of affirmative action? Regardless, both of them support it. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-15-2004, 10:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	Condi always looks angry and bitter in her pictures. I hope she isn't, those would be lousy traits for a diplomat. Bush seems to have picked her due to her continued loyalty to her policies. __________________ It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

11-16-2004, 07:22 AM	#15 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Powell and Rice. These are both two very good - yes, even great - individuals. The Dept. of State has been and will continue to be in good hands. __________________ create evolution

11-16-2004, 08:59 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dunno--i was teaching at stanford while rice was provost, and i was less than impressed with her. very much less than impressed. but she seemed of a piece with the place, if you factored in the hoover institution. if you hang around academicworld long enough, you learn that factoids like "she graduated college when she was 19" are no more than factoids--past a certain point, they indicate nothing. i am not surprised by her nomination--she seems closer to bush politically than powell did. and i suspect the smear-powell element that you see coming from the right of the right is a function of it being evident that powell was more moderate than bush. rather than say this, however, you get "powell was more style than substance". which is par for the course. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-16-2004, 09:18 AM	#19 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	And Bush continues to stack the executive with loyalists. I suppose it's his decision. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

11-16-2004, 01:40 PM	#21 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I have mixed feelings about the departure of Powell. I think that he was one of the few high ranking opposing/critical voices in this administration. That being said, he had virtually no effectiveness in forming or guiding policy and apparently went along with causes and passed along information he disagreeed with. I have a great personal respect for Mr. Powell and if he had decided to seek the presidency I might have crossed the aisle and voted for him. But, he has not been a truly effective Sec of State. He has been a diginified one, and one that has garnered the respect of the world, but that effectiveness and respect have not translated into success for the US. I am not a fan of Dr. Rice. I think she has been far too partisan and not nearly objective enough as Nat. Sec. Advisor. I do, however, think she is qualified to take the helm at State and God knows I hope she can find a way to be successful. She is a much tougher negotiator than Powell, and perhaps that is what is needed. Fortunately, she is not another Neo-Conservative. My real fear is that Bush is merely surrounding himself with more people who will not disagree with him or his policies. I had originally heard that there were three names being considered. Anyone know who those others were? __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

11-16-2004, 01:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	I'll be fine with Rice as the Sec. of State as long as the administration picks a new National Security Adviser that is not closely affiliated with Bush. So far, all of the new appointees have been close to him, and he's going to need internal opposition to be a successful President. Plus, it seems as though there's a problem with our southern border, and it would be good for a fiery outsider to confront the problem.

11-16-2004, 02:08 PM	#23 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	The funny thing about this is, race really isn't an issue here. Powell was a very respected official who lent credibility, a high level of trust internationally, and an ability to reach out to Democrats to the Bush cabinet 4 years ago. Rice was respected by conservatives and her background in Russian affairs made her a great NSA...15 years ago. Actually, the Bush administration was stuck in the Cold War in hiring her. She was not prepared for the current threats and issues facing the U.S., such as WMD proliferation and asymmetrical warfare. Powell disagreed privately a whole lot with many Bush administration policies, but was a loyal soldier who stuck by his commander-in-chief publicly. However, his more moderate views were utterly ignored by the neo-cons/Cheney group (which didn't really include Rice all that much) who heavily influenced Bush's foreign policy decisions. Powell was stuck: he and the state department were being kept out of the loop on damn near everything, while the Bushies conducted policies he disagreed with. In the end, his loyalty won out, as he never publicly chided Bush and even gave that awful presentation to the U.N., which was almost 100% filled with false information and officially destroyed any respect he had amongst liberals/Democrats. Eventually other officials were being sent to do jobs the Secretary of State should do, and he rode out the last of the first Bush term impotent, occasionally making private statements that got out, like the one in which he said he wouldn't support the Iraq war if he knew the WMD info was fake. Rice, meanwhile, sorta went along with neocon/Cheney policies, and didn't disagree with them; she wasn't out of the loop, but she wasn't deeply involved with policy formation either. She is widely recognized as one of, if not the worst NSA ever with regard to policy coordination, which is essentially her job. As head of State, she'll be more in line with Bush's policies, which may bring the department back into the fold a little bit. On the other hand, she's a godawful leader with no track record of success with post-Soviet issues who isn't respected worldwide like Powell was and may not be a good Secretary of State. Plus, removing Powell essentially removes the last high-level cabinet opposition to Bush's radical policies. So really, I don't know if discussing race should be an issue. This isn't about tokenism, or affirmative action (please, Powell was an excellent chair of the JCS, and a great general.) Accusing him of succeeding only through AA is ignorant. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-16-2004, 04:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
tellumFS Tilted	I suppose we'll see what happens. Personally I find Condi to be a less than stellar selection, but who knows. It would appear that this is a trend by the President to select more ideological and personally loyal cabinet ministers. While he does have the right to do this, I wonder how wise it is to dismiss someone like Powell that offered a different view than the Rumsfeld/Cheney group. I don't blame Powell for resigning. Doing so in the middle of the first term would have killed his political career, so I understand why he waited (probably not because he was a "good soldier", that was the UN speech).

11-19-2004, 01:51 AM	#26 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	We should give Condi a chance. I respected Powell as Secretary of State, and I hope Condi can live up to the role she's filling. But who's taking her place as security advisor?

11-19-2004, 03:18 AM	#27 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	What? Bush didn't choose Jimmy Carter instead? This is an outrage!@ __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

11-19-2004, 07:32 AM	#28 (permalink)
Sen Insane Location: Midwest	...and so it begins. This is exactly what I"m talking about. "Aunt Jemima?!?" Seriously, people. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rk_2&printer=1 Radio Host Calls Rice 'Aunt Jemima' Fri Nov 19,12:33 AM ET By JAMES A. CARLSON, Associated Press Writer MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state. John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration. Rice has served as President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser and was named this week to replace the departing Colin Powell (news - web sites) as secretary of state. Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile. He said Thursday night that he was referring to remarks by singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte that the price of admittance for blacks to the Bush White House was subservience. As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence. Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz called the remarks "racially insensitive," while Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., said in a statement he joined "all Wisconsinites in rejecting" the statements. Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety. The station's corporate office received about 100 calls about his comments, Sylvester said. He added that he has a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison's black community. He said he was planning a giveaway on Friday's show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup. "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima," he said. The incident came after a radio host in Milwaukee had his talk show taken off the air all of last week after he used word "wetback" to refer to undocumented Mexican immigrants, sparking protests from Hispanics. __________________ "I want to announce my presence with authority!" "You want to what?" "I want to announce my presence with authority!!"

11-19-2004, 08:27 AM	#29 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	A 50lb. brain with a political outlook more in line with Bush and the rest of his administration. Worked with Bush Sr. as well. Understandable, and more than qualified. Good choice.