Condoleezza Rice Should be the Next VP.

The following is a blog post I wrote for "The American Thinker" a few weeks ago.  I am fully aware that the odds favor Rubio being the pick, and I don't doubt that he would be a good choice, but I think Condi definitely has to be seen as a good prospect.  Anyway, here are my four reasons for why Rice would make the perfect VP pick for Romney.  The article in its entirety can be found here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To focus on Condoleezza Rice's skin color or her gender is to miss why she would be the perfect VP pick for Mitt Romney.

On Thursday evening, "The Drudge Report" reported the rumor that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being considered by the Romney campaign as a potential pick for Vice President.  Predictably, talk has focused on the fact that Rice is African-American and a woman, with a Washington Post op-ed framing her as the "anti-Palin."

While these are certainly factors to consider -- anything that could make a dent in Obama's unfathomable domination of the black community would be welcome -- it is folly to focus on these as Rice's strengths.  I propose that she has four characteristics that make her the perfect choice for Romney's running mate.

Foreign Policy Background

Rice's biggest strength by a mile is also Romney's biggest weakness -- knowledge and experience of foreign policy.  Romney's two pillars of experience are his work in the private sector and his time as the governor of Massachusetts.  While perfectly serviceable credentials, and certainly much stronger than the man currently occupying the White House, they contain no foreign policy background. 

This is exemplified in Romney's book "No Apology."  The chapters on domestic policy are written with large helpings of personal experience, while the foreign policy sections rely almost exclusively on secondary sources.  His international arguments are sound, but reek of speculation.

Possibly for this reason, the Romney campaign has shied away from sinking its teeth into Obama's dismal record abroad, for it knows that the Democrat's attack will be "Obama knows what it's like to make these decisions - Romney doesn't."

Rice is a game changer here.  First as National Security Advisor from 2001-2005 and then as Secretary of State from 2005-2009, Rice played a fundamental role in forming foreign policy during the Bush Administration.  Although these roles contained failures as well as successes, it means the Republicans would have a VP pick who (in terms of time served) has more foreign policy experience than the current President.

It would form a devastating tag team whereby Romney could savage the President for his dismal domestic record, and then step back while Rice takes apart his foreign policy "achievements."

Executive Branch Experience at the National Level

Linked closely to Ms. Rice's background in foreign policy is the fact that she held the office of Secretary of State between 2005 and 2009 and therefore has national experience in the executive branch.  This again fills in for one of Romney's imperfections - that he has no experience at the national level. 

While this is by no means a weakness (many presidential candidates do not), Rice's time as the third-highest official in the executive branch not only rule out questions of whether the VP pick is "ready" for the job, it also intensifies the spotlight on the current President's complete lack of previous qualifications. 

When the Republican's Vice Presidential nominee could argue that she has more experience under her belt than a sitting President, it would be an uncomfortable situation for the Democrats to say the least.

Likeability

Although the Palin experience tells us how quickly popular poll numbers can change, it is undeniable that Rice's numbers are astonishingly high among both Republicans and the public at large for a nationally well-known political figure. 

In a CNN poll of Republicans in April, she held an 80% approval rating - which seems to dismiss concerns that her soft tendencies on issues like abortion could upset grassroots conservatives.  This, with the fact that the Obamacare Supreme Court decision has fired up conservatives on an unprecedented level, should quell the fears of anyone worried that a Romney-Rice ticket wouldn't mobilize the base.  They are mobilized to the teeth, and a Rice pick won't change that.

Yet it is her likeability with the public at large that should raise eyebrows.  Among likely US voters, Rasmussen reports that Condi has a 66% favorability rating, with 32% viewing her Very Favorably.  Only 24% have a somewhat or Very Unfavorable view of her. 

It is for this reason I disagree with Erick Erickson who dismisses her for her connection to Bush.  Yes, Ms. Rice is connected to the Bush administration, but she has managed not to be tainted by it.  It's the best of both worlds for conservatives.

Argument/Rhetoric

This last point is probably the point in which she is the least unique, as there are a whole host of candidates who have solid rhetorical skills and who are good in a debate.  Yet the fact that it is just another feather in her cap as opposed to a defining characteristic -- as is the case with someone like Chris Christie -- proves what a strong candidate Condi is.

As an academic, Rice knows how to make her point clearly, in a concise and professional manner, and with passion.  Although judgments on these matters are largely subjective, rumors that her recent speech in Park City led to two standing ovations amongst Republican elites, and immediately put her at the top of Romney's list, give weight to this claim.

Condi also brings an unflappable calmness in the face of intense criticism that allows her to stop an attack in its track and deconstruct the opposition argument in a way that can be truly breathtaking.  I saw her at a book signing a few years ago at which she was heckled by a number of screaming liberals throughout.  Each time she'd let them speak before annihilating their talking points with a polite smile, in the same way she has been filmed doing time and time again.  A debate between Rice and Joe Biden would be a bloodbath.

Therefore, Condoleezza Rice has a wealth of experience that would both compensate for Romney's weaknesses and open up new avenues of attack against Obama, she is hugely popular with both Republicans and the public at large, and we know that she is going to be a fierce foe in any debate in which she participates.

There is no need to discuss her skin color or her gender to know that Condoleezza Rice would be an incredibly effective pick for VP.  Yes, it's a bold move, but should Romney stick his neck out on this one, Ms. Rice could prove to be a game changer who could deliver a landslide for the Republicans in November.

The British Left's Betrayal of America

Here is my latest article for The American Thinker, published late last week. It covers the Wikileaks revelations that reveal that Britain collaborated with Libya in order to get the Lockerbie Bomber released on compassionate grounds.  I am of course not happy at this news.  The article can be found in its entirety here.

Since then however, another story has come along and blown it out of the water - it appears that under the START treaty, President Obama has agreed to disclose British nuclear secrets to the Russians.  Again - shocking, but not surprising.  Obama has never hidden his hatred of Britain, and so for him to throw us Brits under the bus for political expediency should surprise no-one.

In many years to come, when people write the history of the Anglo-American relationship, surely they will look at this and see the lowest moment.  I cannot see how the UK-US relationship can sink any lower right about now.  With the most anti-British President in the White House, and an anti-American nut job as Deputy Prime Minister in Britain, those of us who care about the relationship between Britain and America can only look to the future and hope that things will get better in a couple of years.

Will 2011 be America's Year of Union Discontent?

My latest article has been published today in the American Thinker, and focuses on the fight for freedom from the socialist trade unions.  This is a fight we in Britain have been engaged in for a long time, and I believe that it is set to become the new fight that Americans have to face.

This has proved true looking at the recent chaos in New York caused by the deliberate slow down by union workers in order to force the New York legislature to agree to whatever demands they have come up with this time.  Unfortunately with Obama in the White House, it seems that the unions are only going to becomes more and more powerful, and this gives them only more of a chance to screw the country up.  Americans, trust us, they will screw your country up given half the chance - it is exactly what they did to our country, and are currently trying to do once again!

The article can be found here.

Britain's Left Are Panicking

My latest article in The American Thinker has been published and focuses upon the left-wing student riots. The article argues that increasing tuition fees threatens the left's hold over the University system in Britain, and therefore represents a real threat to their agenda.  It is for this reason that we have seen so much venom towards the government proposals.

As a PS, I should make reference to a criticism of the article that has popped up a few times  - that is that I am naive for believing that a small hike will remove the left-wing problem in universities.  This is not what the article is saying at all.  I am not saying that this will remove the problem, but that it will weaken the left's grip, as it will dissuade disinterested students not to come, and will result in students demanding greater quality from their lecturers.  As fees go up, as will quality.  That is all I am arguing, not that this latest hike has solved the many, many problems of the British university.  I hope this helps!

President Bush's Challenge to Great Britain

Although it is based generally on a post I made a few weeks ago, my latest article in the American Thinker is out, and focuses on George W Bush's claims that waterboarding saved British lives.  It argues that it is about time that people in both Britain and America make a genuine decision about what they are prepared to accept in order to save the lives of innocent civilians.

The article can be found here.

Obama and Clinton's Betrayal of an Ally

My latest article is out in The American Thinker today.  It focuses again on Anglo-American affairs, this time on the spending cuts going on in Great Britain, and how the defence cuts have been made worse by the anti-British attitudes of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration.

It aims to show how the Obama Administration has sidelined Great Britain, labelling us a second rate power and nothing special, and that as a result, Britain has started acting like a second rate power.  So, when Hillary Clinton starts moaning that our defence cuts are going to damage our contributions to NATO, she has only herself and her administration to blame.

Britain should not have cut their defence spending by 8%, but the Coalition have only been able to do that because the conservative right in Great Britain have lost the argument when it comes to Britain being a first-rate power.  Part of this defeat has come down to the fact that we are no longer able to display our relationship with America.  How can we claim a Special Relationship with America, when the Obama Administration is denying that the relationship ever existed?

Anyway, the article can be found here.

The Left's Terror Folly

My latest article in the American Thinker was out yesterday.  It focuses on the myth that Islamic anger is somehow isolated to American foreign policy.  This myth infects the policies of the Obama Administration and various European governments.  However it has been blown to pieces by the latest attempted terrorist attacks in Europe, which  targeted countries that did not follow Bush's foreign policy.  This has significance for the left's understanding of the future of foreign policy.

The article can be found here.

The Destructive Fair Trade Movement

My latest article for the American Thinker has come out.  I have been really busy over the last few months so my contributions to the Thinker have been few and far between.  Hopefully now my contributions will be a little more frequent.  I am already working on an article about Ed Miliband and Labour's lurch to the left.

Until then here is my latest article on the Fairtrade movement, and how it simply ends up making problems for those in developing countries worse, not better, despite the movements good intentions.

It can be found at American Thinker here.

Top Ten Things America Has Done for Muslims

Apologies again for the brief posts.  This week is the week my dissertation is to be handed in, so it is set to be a busy week!  However, I will still be putting various opinions and links throughout.  Today, I wanted to link to this very interesting article by Ben Voth in The American Thinker.

It argues against the current left-wing argument that because America overwhelmingly opposed the Ground Zero Mosque, that it is somehow an "Islamophobic" country, or is engaged with a war in Islam, or somehow needs to apologise to Muslims for all the nasty things America is supposed to have done to Muslims and to the religion of Islam.  Instead, Voth points out just how many Muslim lives America has saved, and how America is a force for good for everyone, including Muslims, in the world.

You can find the article here.

Obama's Deadly Anti-British Agenda

Today, David Cameron and Barack Obama will meet to discuss various issues, including Afghanistan, Libya and the BP Oil Spill.  Obama is not known for being particularly pro-British (in fact, quite the opposite), and his administration has decimated the Special Relationship in less than two years.  This meeting is therefore crucial for the future of Anglo-American relations if such a relationship is to be salvaged.  My latest article in The American Thinker deals with this meeting within the context of Obama's anti-British prejudices.

It shows how Obama's anti-British agenda is deeply rooted - possibly stemming from his youth - and has infiltrated not just his own attitudes towards the British, but also the policies of the entire Obama administration.  Yet not only does this denigration of the Special Relationship hurt the British, it also has the potential to hurt the American public - by damaging the united stance against terrorism, and possibly limiting the British contribution to future American led conflicts.  Such an outcome would be a disaster for the Americans and for the British.  It must not be allowed to happen, and it is for this reason that this week's meeting is so important.

The article can be read here.

The Parade of Bleeding Stumps

Here in Great Britain, there has been  an Emergency Budget announced in order to cut public spending, which has been met with outrage from the British left.  In America, there are similar calls to cut public spending.  In my latest article in The American Thinker, I examine the implications that such calls have for the left and their strategy in preparation for the American November elections.

The article can be found here.