Rod Dreher

Let Them Eat Subsidized Soybeans

Condi + Cheney = Catastrophe

By Rod Dreher • July 13, 2012, 12:39 PM

In his brilliant, succinct way, Daniel Larison obliterates the case for Condoleezza Rice as Romney’s running mate:

Rice did a lousy job as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, and she has the unusual distinction of being distrusted and disliked by many neoconservatives, most realists, and all non-interventionists in almost equal measure. She is closely associated with an administration that was widely regarded as incompetent in the conduct of foreign policy, and she helped to craft one of the least successful foreign policy records of any postwar administration. Those are her qualifications in the area in which she is considered an expert. On everything else, her policy views are either out of step with the majority of her party or unknown, and she has never run for office at any level. Romney certainly needs someone to make up for his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge, but Rice would be one of the worst conceivable people to have in that role.

In related news, Dick Cheney has now endorsed Romney, saying that Romney is the “only” presidential candidate one can trust to make the right decision in a foreign policy crisis. Says the vice president who helped lead the US into one of the worst foreign policy debacles of its history. I can’t imagine why these people think that selling Romney as “Dubya II: Electric Boogaloo” is the kind of prospect that puts butts in the seats.

Posted in Presidential politics, Republicans. Tagged Condi Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, foreign policy, Mitt Romney.

38 Responses to Condi + Cheney = Catastrophe

Patrick says:

July 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm

“I can’t imagine why these people think that selling Romney as “Dubya II: Electric Boogaloo” is the kind of prospect that puts butts in the seats.”

Perhaps this is aimed at the type of person who voted for Santorum or Gingrich in the primary, not the 70% of the country who thinks the Bush Presidency was disastrous, most of whom aren’t considering voting GOP anyway. The type of person I’m talking about is a white evangelical, probably southern, who is looking at an East Coast rich boy nominee and thinking of staying home.
jaybird says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:12 pm

I think Condi for veep would be awesome, only for the fact that it would put a black lesbian a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Hunk Hondo(C.H. Ross) says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm

I hope Peggy’s EEG is spiking right now. It was flatter than south Louisiana when she produced this. I’m genuinely embarrassed for her.
James C. says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Well, the fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney hated her does say something in her favor. Who was really running things in that administration? Perhaps Harry Belafonte had it right after all when he spoke about “house negros”.
Robert_Burdette says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm

As much as I hate to admit it, I honestly think there is a significant part of the population that would be perfectly happy with a third Bush term.

My hunch is based entirely on anecdotal evidence, such as the fact that I can’t log onto Facebook without be deluged with links to pages discussing what a great leader Bush was and how he alone had the guts to keep the nation safe post 9/11. Then there’s the near constant stream of letters to the editor in our local paper discussing how much better things where when Bush was president (cheap gas, low unemployment, etc.). That none of these contentions stands up to the light of day does little–as far as I can tell–to dissuade these individuals from wholeheartedly believing such was the case.
James says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm

This smacks of insulated, inside the Beltway perspective. To many Republicans and conservatives out in main street America, Condi is well-respected and revered.
James C. says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Sarah Palin has already given her imprimatur, and Condi’s favorability numbers among Republicans and the general public is very high. This could happen.
bubba says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

“Says the vice president who helped lead the US into one of the worst foreign policy debacles of its history.”

Let us pause now to remember those who lent their unqualified journalistic support to that debacle from the pages of major newspapers and blogs.
Jim says:

July 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Condi Rice is pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. She was also a disaster as National Security Advisor. She won’t be the GOP VP nominee this year.

This story via Drudge is meant to distract the media from the Bain fiasco. Romney can’t/won’t disclose his tax returns for those years — even though he disclosed them to McCain in 2008 when he was sucking up to be the VP nominee, and yet the SEC disclosure forms appear to indicate that he is lying about cutting his ties to Bain post-1999. This is what’s called having a firm grip on one’s own petards.
Brian says:

July 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm

It’s nice that Larison could use this laughable “scoop” to write post number 6,324,345 about why Mitt Romney is horrible, but the rest of us can safely treat it as the absurd nonsense that it clearly is.
Beyng says:

July 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I think Larison deeply underestimates the respect that a large number of Republican voters maintain for Rice–even if/precisely because she is a neoconservative. She’s articulate, intelligent, accomplished. In short, plenty of people admire her, for better or worse (in my opinion, worse).

To be fair–and perhaps I should share this on his blog and not yours–I think Larison often mistakes his own sensible views on foreign policy for the views of all/most intelligent would-be Republican voters. Sadly, he’s mistaken. If anything sinks Condi’s chances, it will be her “moderate” views on a certain constellation of “social” issues (including, last I checked, abortion). The quasi-isolationist/realist foreign policies of Larison, Pat Buchanan, et al. remain a minority, if not fringe, position within the G.O.P. Larison forgets that fact from time to time. Condi’s previous affiliations aren’t going to hurt her chances among likely Republican voters.

That said, rumors about her potential candidacy are a “trial balloon,” I think. Someone in the Romney camp probably leaked her name to Drudge to gauge the reaction. Purely in value-neutral electoral terms, though, I think Rice would be a net-benefit to Romney’s campaign in today’s world of identity-politics. She’s black and she’s a woman–and not the kind of woman who could credibly receive the Palin treatment.

And how could Larison forget? The average voter doesn’t care about her foreign policy views. Or anyone’s at this point, frankly.
reflectionephemeral says:

July 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm

“Says the vice president who helped lead the US into one of the worst foreign policy debacles of its history.”

Now, now, let’s be fair, Rod.

Remember, on the other side of the ledger, Cheney also insisted that “deficits don’t matter”. He provided the intellectual ballast, and fought hard, for the Bush administration’s efforts to create our current deficits.

So, the folks from the Bush administration who’ll staff & advise a Romney administration are indeed the folks who led the US into among its worst foreign policy debacles, but also led us into among our worst fiscal calamities and financial crises.

There. Fair and balanced.
Daniel Larison says:

July 13, 2012 at 2:53 pm

I appreciate most of the comments. A post explaining why Romney would definitely not select Rice is hardly an attack on Romney. I realize that the Drudge “scoop” is a distraction, and I said as much in this morning’s post. I am not making assumptions about what most likely Republican voters think of Rice. They might very well like her, but the majority of voters that turned against Bush isn’t going to want to support someone who was that high-ranking in an unpopular administration.

Kristol’s argument earlier this week, like Noonan’s, is that Rice supposedly has great qualifications because of her service in the Bush administration. I have been pointing out that her record is what should disqualify her. As I have said several times, I don’t believe Rice is being seriously considered for this position. Kristol and Noonan believe she should be, and I am commenting on the silliness of their belief. One doesn’t need to share my views on foreign policy to recognize that she did a mostly bad job in both Bush terms. Go read Bret Stephens or Michael Rubin on the same subject, and you’ll see what I mean.
Steve in Ohio says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm

The whole thing must be a ploy to show independents and swing voters how open minded Romney is. I’m surprised we’re not hearing from Dick Morris. Remember that “wonderful” book four years ago about how Condi would run against Hillary and defeat her?
Johnny F. Ive says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Is there anyone that has been mentioned as a serious contender for the vice presidency that would be more acceptable than Rice?
Edward Hamilton says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm

I seriously doubt any sizable fraction of the general public is aware of internal differences between different members of the Bush administration in either ideology or competence. If Condi emerged as a VP candidate (which, agreed, won’t ever happen) some of that history would begin to occur in a public enough way that some awareness might begin to emerge, although it would be completely swamped by the usual knee-jerk partisanship that would reduce her to a referendum on the Bush administration in general.

If there’s anything of which do I feel sure, it’s that the eventual veep nominee will be someone who is vulnerable to virtually all these same criticisms by virtue of voluntarily endorsing, at least in a broad sense, the foreign policy of the Bush administration during the previous decade. But I think Rice would be more popular with the public than any other similar Bush-era figure, due to her personal narrative as a high-achievement black academic. As the Cain experience demonstrated, conservative activists are desperate to lavish their affection on any black Republican who can validate their belief that their ideology is universally true, rather than being demographically bounded by self-interest.

I do sympathize with the dilemma of the Republican party in this election, with a too-common choice between someone who is obviously inexperienced on foreign policy or someone who is experienced in all the wrong ways.
Mike says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:27 pm

The fact that she isn’t pro-life enough (and maybe even pro-choice) is a much bigger deal-killer than her foreign policy bona fides.
KalkiDas says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm

So tired of Kristol and Noonan. Every time I become annoyed at progressives, I think of someone like Kristol and the difference between the neocons and progressives seems like nothing and my loathing for both is in competition with one another.
Beyng says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Apropos of something Daniel Larison mentions in his comment above, did the majority of voters–especially Republican voters–actually turn against Bush in any substantive way at any point in the past twelve years? I’d like to interrogate this notion, at least in a very broad sense. To my eye–again, in a very general sense–Obama’s foreign policy is no less interventionist and neo-conservative than his predecessor, and deficits don’t seem to matter any less to Obama than they did to Cheney. And meanwhile, whom have the voters selected for the presidential contest in 2012? It looks to me like we have Bush III on the one hand, and Bush III on the other.

Voters may have rejected Bush in a personalistic sense in 2008 (what about 2010?), but I don’t see any substantive rejection or realignment happening or having happened. With the possible exception of Iran emerging as a salient issue, foreign policy and security concerns have mostly been sublimated, but neither voter nor governmental stances have shifted much: neither Obama nor Romney promises not to invade Iran (or Syria), and the voters are eating up such pregnant silence.
jaybird says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Beyng: It looks to me like we have Bush III on the one hand, and Bush III on the other.

One of my verrrry lefty/activist friends has long said that Obama is just G.W.B. redux, but with more-palatable rhetoric and better follow-through. It’s hard to argue with him on that point.
cecelia says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm

the thing that boggles my mind – is that so far the election polls show a close call on who the next president will be – incomprehensible. A guy with swiss bank accounts and Bush era neo con advisors is where we really want to go ?
JonF says:

July 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Re: The type of person I’m talking about is a white evangelical, probably southern, who is looking at an East Coast rich boy nominee and thinking of staying home.

Ms. Rice is not exactly a down home good old girl. She too is a DC insider elitist. If Romney wanted to excite the Southerners maybe he ought pick someone like Huckabee.
reflectionephemeral says:

July 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm

Beyng: did the majority of voters–especially Republican voters–actually turn against Bush in any substantive way at any point in the past twelve years?

Most Americans, except conservative Republicans, disliked the Bush administration by the end.

See:

The Bush administration gave us Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the executive’s asserted power to wiretap and to detain & torture US citizens without charges or a warrant, surpluses turned into deficits, Raich v Gonzales, and also the invasion for bogus reasons & failed occupation of an arbitrarily selected Middle Eastern country.

I am at a loss to determine exactly which strain of conservatism compelled these actions.

What was the response of Americans to all this? Well, as Bush left office, he had a 28 percent approval rating from independents– and a 75 % rating from Republicans,according to Gallup. According to an ABC/WaPo poll, Bush left office with 34% approval from independents, and 68% from Republicans– but 82% from self-professed “conservative Republicans”. Over the course of his presidency, Bush received an average of about 80% approval of “conservative Republicans”.
Liam says:

July 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm

The only Presidents (which VPs have to be ready to become) who never held elective office and who were not triumphant war generals (that is, excluding Taylor, Grant & Eisenhower) were Taft and Hoover.

The Condi thing is merely a BSO (Bright Shiny Object) to distract from the Bain fiasco for Romney (the harder he fights, the worse that one will get for him).
Patrick says:

July 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

@ Beyng:

“It looks to me like we have Bush III on the one hand, and Bush III on the other.”

Haha. Yeah: Bush’s legacy is a stupid health care bill (Medicare Part D) and a war. Obama’s legacy is a stupid health care bill and a war.
Charles Cosimano says:

July 13, 2012 at 8:03 pm

It is all irrelevant. The election will be a referendum on Obama. Romney could pick anyone for his VP and it would not matter.

Two things to remember. Voters usually do not give a hoot in hell about foreign policy and no one cares about Iraq. That is a dead fish wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper. So Condi has no downside from that.

Second, the Republican vote is undercounted in polls. We see this time and again, most recently in Wisconsin where the pollsters had the election neck and neck and the results were anything but. What is apparently happening is that Republican voters are just harder for pollsters to reach and thus the polling results are inaccurate. If you compensate for that by adding a certain percentage to the Republicans you see a much different election picture. In practical, political terms,it is hard to see how Condi can be anything but a plus for Romney.

Oh, and she would eat Biden for lunch in a debate. A former university professor against a man who can’t figure out how to tie his shoes?
JonF says:

July 13, 2012 at 8:46 pm

Re: Second, the Republican vote is undercounted in polls.

I don’t recall that in 2008. Obama basically won where he was predicted to win, by (approximately) the margins expected. He even won a couple places (Indiana, North Carolina) judged too close to call, and by very tiny margins.
You can make a case that the GOP vote is undercounted in off year elections, but I don’t think that holds in presidential elections any more, if it ever did.
Dave Dutcher says:

July 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm

So who does Daniel suggest he pick? I admit I haven’t been following him mostly because the titles of his articles seem to be more about the evisceration and less of the construction, if you get my drift. What would be the ideal veep pick for him?
Jim says:

July 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Romney might want to pick Huckabee as his VP but he’s reasonably sure that he (Romney) is the only person on earth that Huckabee would tell to go f**k himself. Huckabee loathes Romney.
Eisenhower says:

July 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm

“What would be the ideal veep pick for him?”
To my knowledge there is almost no one out there that could make Romney acceptable enough for Mr. Larison to vote for him. The closest person out there ideologically would probably be Senator Rand Paul, but I believe Mr. Larison has already stated his opposition to Senator Paul joining Romney’s ticket.
TTT says:

July 14, 2012 at 12:28 am

One of my verrrry lefty/activist friends has long said that Obama is just G.W.B. redux, but with more-palatable rhetoric and better follow-through. It’s hard to argue with him on that point.

I take the liberal stance on most issues but people like that really irritate me. Obama passed healthcare reform, ended the Iraq War, ended DADT, endorsed gay marriage, killed OBL, and really tried very hard (and continues to try) to end the Bush-era radical redistribution of wealth to the rich.

A lot of lefty types are idealistic ingrates of the Nader blend, with a paranoid perspective on corporate donations that reminds me of Reconstruction-era classifications of people into “quartoons” and “octroons.”
Charles Cosimano says:

July 14, 2012 at 2:02 am

Jon F, it is essential to throw out 2008 as any indicator. Given what happened to the economy two months before the election it was impossible for any Republican to win and the polling data reflected that.

You have to go back to 2004 to find that the data was totally off, particularly the exit polls which actually showed Kerry as winning and the polling organizations were in a literal panic trying to figure out how they are wondering how they could have been so wrong, like they are wondering in Wisconsin right now. When your data is off by 11 percentage points something really went wrong.

So weighting the Republican vote by 3 to 5% is a reasonable solution to the problem. Hence if you have a poll that shows Obama and Romney in a dead heat, then Romney can be expected to be ahead in the actual vote count. In any event, it is an idea that has to be tested by the election results but if it is even close to being accurate, then Romney is winning and no one cares about Bain who is not already firmly in the Obama camp, therefore it is a non-issue with the actual voters.

And the number of voters afraid of a war with Iran probably would fit in a large broom closet. It is an absolute non-issue.
David J. White says:

July 14, 2012 at 9:40 am

Oh, and she would eat Biden for lunch in a debate. A former university professor against a man who can’t figure out how to tie his shoes?

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. After decades in the Senate, I think Biden has a lot more give-and-take debate experience than Rice does. University professors have a lot of experience lecturing, which is not the same thing as debating.
VikingLS says:

July 14, 2012 at 9:56 am

“Oh, and she would eat Biden for lunch in a debate. A former university professor against a man who can’t figure out how to tie his shoes?”

A former university professor, wow. As a current university professor let me assure you that doesn’t mean she can hold her own in a debate.
VikingLS says:

July 14, 2012 at 10:02 am

Rice has her admirers but putting her on ticket isn’t going to help Romney get over his image problem as an out-of-touch elitist.
Eisenhower says:

July 14, 2012 at 11:01 am

“Obama passed healthcare reform, ended the Iraq War, ended DADT, endorsed gay marriage, killed OBL, and really tried very hard (and continues to try) to end the Bush-era radical redistribution of wealth to the rich.”

As someone who doesn’t take the liberal stand on most issues I sympathize with the “Naderites”.

“Obama passed Healthcare reform”

Yes he did, he passed a version of the Bob Dole/American Heritage Foundation plan from the 90s which liberals used to denounce as a give way to the Healthcare Industry.

“ended the Iraq War”

Only after trying to renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement signed by the Bush Administration. If the President had is way we would’ve stayed even longer.

“endorsed gay marriage”

Despite the symbolism of the endorsement, what has this actually accomplished. He waited till after the North Carolina debacle where his influence might have helped with the black vote. And he still stated that it should be left to the states, (I agree with him on that). But that’s a essentially a conservative if not small libertarian position, “federalism, let the states decide”

“killed OBL”
Which is something everyone wanted. Not really a “Progressive” policy goal. Everyone except the uber-noninterventionists, Pacifists, and those who believe we threatened Pakistan’s Sovereignty, agreed with this action.

“and really tried very hard (and continues to try) to end the Bush-era radical redistribution of wealth to the rich.”

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here?

If you’re talking about the Bush tax cuts, he essentially caved on those because he didn’t want run on a “tax increase” during an election year. Which really isn’t “trying very hard” its covering one’s political ass.

If you’re talking about the De-regulations, I have to ask what de-regulations? If you’re referring to the Repeal of Glass-Steagall that was Clinton. And most of the Clintonians who supported that decision Summers, Rubin, etc. were welcomed into the Obama camp. Heck, their protege Geithner (whose brilliance at NY Fed obviously deserved recognition), was made Sec. of Treasury. If you’re talking about TARP, Obama voted for it while he was a Senator.

Putting aside those issues we also have
his endorsement of the Bush National Security state. His support for the Patriot Act re-authorization while opposing the reforms pursued by respected Progressives like Russ Feingold (the JUSTICE Act), and Pat Leahy. Both of whom backed him early politically in 08.

The increased raids in states that allow Medical Marijuana, despite his promises during the campaign to do otherwise. Politically it would seem he could embrace the conservative dissent in the Gonazles v. Raich case to justify morally, and politically why letting the states decide on this issue is the right thing to do. Much like he’s gonna use Roberts ruling to deflect political criticism of his healthcare plan. But then again his actions suggest to me that he isn’t an actual reformer so why would he embrace this tactic on the drug war.

Honestly I could keep going, and don’t get me wrong I love the fact the Pragmatism in the Democratic Party is now defined as Old Republican policies. But on some this stuff this seems unnecessary. Some of these issues simply required backbone and leadership on your party’s part. You know actually making the argument. Heck, I even agree with you guys on some this stuff, (Patriot Act reform, and Medical pot). So I have to ask what’s the point of a Center-Left party that doesn’t uphold its end of the debate? And how are Progressives winning anything by backing a President who, (by his own actions),thinks it’s politically infeasible to stand up for large portions of the progressive agenda?
JonF says:

July 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Re: Jon F, it is essential to throw out 2008 as any indicator.

Not just 2008, but several previous presidential elections show no evidence of a Republican undercount in the polls, taken a whole. (Yes, I exclude the exit polling, which tends to be uniformly bad everywhere). 2004 and 2000 were polled as too close to call and ended up with very narrow victories. 1996 polled as a Clinton victory, but with many votes lost to Perot. Ditto 1992. How far back do we have to go to find this undercount? 1980 maybe, seen as much closer than it was (though due mainly to phantom strength for John Anderson that did not materialize)? Is there any presidential election in our lifetimes where the late polling miscalled the result or got the margin hugely wrong, beyond the usual error bars associated with such things? Truman vs Dewey was quite a long time ago now.
sjay says:

July 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Where in the world were these polls that showed Walker losing the recall election. Here’s a link to Nate Silver’s blog a few days before the election when he is reviewing the polls and saying they suggest a 95% chance of Walker victory. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/late-polls-find-walker-is-still-favored/