More Active Posts
Front Page
The Condi watch
 |
 60 Comments |
Would she or wouldn’t she? Climb aboard the McCain ticket if asked to do so, that is. Washington watcher Ron Kessler says signs are that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would accept a veep nod – even though a Rice rep says it ain’t so:
One source told Newsmax that she expressed interest in the possibility when Rudy Giuliani was running for president. Another source said she has more recently let her interest be known discreetly within top Republican circles, presumably including John McCain’s camp.
Fueling speculation that she would consider being on the ticket, Rice appeared for the first time this week at the so-called Wednesday meeting run by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Rice spoke for 20 minutes at the off-the-record meeting of conservative leaders, then took questions for 20 minutes.
But when asked for comment, an aide to Rice told Kessler it was “not true” that the Secretary has expressed interest in a run and noted Rice’s recent statement that she intends to return to Stanford, where she once served as provost. I hope the aide was obfuscating.
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
No, no, no. McCain needs a strongly pro-life VP or he is toast.
Rice will not bring in enough of the black vote to make up for losing the evangelical vote.
The only two reasons I would vote for McCain are Hillary and Barak. I may not even do it then. Rice won’t affect my decision at all.
kBells…why? McCain himself is strongly pro-life. (at least as I understand him)
Also, my theory is that McCain will not lose the evangelical vote, in part because evangelicals understand the Supreme Court consequences of a Democratic president.
Meanwhile, Condi Rice is an evangelical believer, isn’t she? Just not of the so-called Religious Right stripe. Or am I wrong about that?
Lynn, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical believer. What we need is conservative leadership. None of that is on the horizon. I wish your Duncan Hunter had some traction. I worry about the future of our nation for my grandkids, I really do.
Chas,
Yes, but Condi isn’t a nut case like Jimmy Carter!
If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, I think Condi could swing a lot of votes to the Rep ticket.
As you well should Chas!
At this late date I find it unconscionable that with well over 70% of the citizenry having internet access in their own homes that they are even less capable of their own governance than before we had it.
The outrageous spin of the MSM, alleged pundits and campaigns was and is all that I see parroted in the aspersions of candidates who were clearly qualified, experienced with the principles and values to sustain our freedom and our very existence.
If you also see this drivel I would appreciate the help in handing out the homework they should have easily sought out on their own;
Barack Hussein Obama
http://bhobama.blogspot.com/
John “Juan” McCain
http://juanmccain.blogspot.com/
Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee
http://mikeyhuckabee.blogspot.com/
Willard Mitt Romney
http://willardromney.blogspot.com/
Rudolph Giuliani
http://rudolphgiuliani.blogspot.com/
If you haven’t seen the following they may help you to nail down a few reasons for our current situation;
How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19227.shtml
Who Hijacked the Primaries? by Brett Winterble
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726
The Death of Conservatism? 43 Mistakes and the GOP’s Dobson’s Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961546/posts
GOP Leads Astray
http://gopleadsastray.blogspot.com/
Lynn, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical believer. What we need is conservative leadership.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that, Chas. I was only responding to what I felt kBells seemed to be saying — that we needed an evangelical on the bottom of the ticket.
McCain has about a 82% pro-life record. I don’t think that is strongly pro-life. But he is more pro-life than Hillary or Obama. I’m not voting for him as much as I’m voting against them. A strongly pro-abortion VP like Rice might keep me home.
I think McCain is looking elsewhere for a VP. Despite bad blood between them - did you notice McCain cozying up to Romney yesterday?
Besides anyone who would pick a candidate because of race or gender has already been scooped up by the Democrats.
If choosing Rice lost the evangelical vote, then those evangelicals need to be jettisoned from the GOP anyway. Dr. Rice is brilliant. If W had listened to Powell and Rice to begin with he wouldn’t be in so much trouble right now. Forget that she is African-American or a woman, she has more political chops in her than Clinton and Obama put together.
In politics an 82% voting record would make McCain a pro-life candidate. Evangelicals are forever shooting themselves in the foot by being one issue voters.
Condi’s not helping her case by going to Norquist meetings. Norquist is nothing but an Islamist sympathizer wrapped in a low-tax package.
Condi can hint all she wants, but it really depends on who McCain wants as a running mate. I can’t see him choosing her, simply because she is so close to the Bush administration. All the overt lovey-dovey talk aside, I don’t think McCain has any admiration for Bush or his inner circle, so I think he will politely pass on Condi as VP.
Condi brings nothing to McCain. His strong suit is defense/foreign policy. She’s a card of the same suit. And he doesn’t need a flush to win the game, rather a high straight. I think she actually hurts him due to her strong association with Bush foreign policy.
He needs to pick a strong economic conservative. There are only two major issues right now that will galvanize voters - defense and the economy. And currently it is economic issues, not defense, that is dominating national water cooler talk.
McCain stated in one of the GOP debates that the economy is not his strong suit. If, as expected, the economy remains the #1 story for the next 6 months, he’d better be able to respond more effectively than he has so far. He’s missed opportunities over the last several weeks where he could have taken a more prominent stand on some of the recent fed/govt actions. He choose to visit Iraq instead. That’s where hes comfortable, but it’s a risky strategy.
He should pick a strong, articulate fiscal conservative soon.
Swing voters (me) are waiting for that to happen. Pick Condi and I’m gone.
TB is right. McCain should learn a lesson from the not-so-distant past: “It’s the economy, Stupid.”
“He needs to pick a strong economic conservative.”
I could buy into your argument, Travis, that Rice is of the same suit and that McCain needs a strong fiscal conservative, but what would he do with said conservative once he’s reached his goal?
I doubt McCain would ever ask Rice. There are a lot of reasons why he wouldn’t, it would not hinge only on the fact that she is pro-choice.
With Mitt Romney touring and campaigning with McCain as of this week, the choice is likely made since McCain is weak on the economy and this election will be more about the the economy than anything else a this point.
Condi said she would never run for an office that required her to votes of the citizens where she would have to debate and answer the gay question.
ADIOS: . If W had listened to Powell and Rice to begin with he wouldn’t be in so much trouble right now.
LESTER: . . .she is so close to the Bush administration.
Chaos on the right! Conservatives don’t have a straight story about the high water mark of their ascendancy in American history. Condi was a disastrous national security advisor and will tie down McCain to his own displays of bad judgement and lack of prudent foresight.
TRAVIS: He needs to pick a strong economic conservative.
That would be a very good move as Americans are feeling the pain of the worst and most difficult recession in decades. Lets saddle up and have a debate about anti-government economic policies and a new New Deal! Travis, I bet you McCain won’t have the guts to go there. Rather than defend and promote a conservative economic theory, McCain (who admits his economic ignorance) is going to run a negative campaign against the big L-word. For that, he’ll need a Southern born againer.
Michael Steele might be an interesting VP choice. His resume is a little light but so is Obamas. On the other hand, I doubt having a black on the ticket will bring much to McCain since blacks tend to vote Democrat no matter what. He may also want someone youthful to counter the generational issue (but not Dan Quail youthful).
Romney is being brought out at this point as a trial balloon to see how he campaigns, what he can do for the ticket, and how he will affect the polls. If there is no change, look for someone else.
The best choice for McCain is not a strong conservative but a middle right conservative. I believe this election will be decided by the independent vote.
The right has no choice other than McCain or sit home and that would be a disaster for a variety of reasons. BHO or HC are totally unacceptable, higher taxes to pay for huge government programs are unacceptable, being soft on the war on terror is unacceptable, allowing liberals to pick the next 2 or 3 SCOTUS judges is unacceptable.
McCain pretty much has the right vote in the bag, he needs moderates and fiscal conservatives. Don’t look for Guiliani (liberal), Thompson (lackluster), Huckabee (too “religious and right). That pretty much leaves Romney (trial balloon for the next few weeks as they campaign together) or someone else who is a moderate and is flying below the radar.
I find myself agreeing with Adios’ first post in its entirety.
Inasmuch as both Dem candidates are already saying that McCain is four more years of Bush, why prove that by taking on Dr. Rice?
Except for Dick Cheney, what usually happens to vice presidents? Not much. I was hoping for Sec’y of the Treasury for Romney, but I’d go along with him as a VP.
“Meanwhile, Condi Rice is an evangelical believer, isn’t she?”
How many definitions or types of “evangelical believer” are there anyway?
“Evangelicals are forever shooting themselves in the foot by being one issue voters.”
So what do you suggest? That we vote against our own conscience?
That depends, what is of most importance, voting your conscience or changing law?
Welcome to politics.
I thought that Rice’s goal is to be the NFL Commissioner. The economy is one of McCain’s weaknesses (as it is for Obama and Clinton), and so I think that he should choose a running mate with strong economic credentials, which would not be Rice.
Rice for NFL Commissioner!
Llama,
Somehow I doubt Condi ever actually said this: “Condi said she would never run for an office that required her to votes of the citizens where she would have to debate and answer the gay question.” I’m pretty sure the only part of this she actually said is that she doesn’t want to run for elective office, and you’re speculating as to the reason, right? (And I don’t think it’s fair to think she’s a lesbian. There’s no evidence.)
On the topic, I don’t think she’d be a good pick. I wouldn’t vote for the ticket. (I wouldn’t vote for McCain/Romney, either.)
Rice says has no plan to run for vice president
Fri Feb 22, 2008
“I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office,” Rice said at a news conference. “I didn’t even run for high school president. It’s sort of not in my genes.”
Adios,
Voting for McCain would, unfortunately, probably not do either (”voting your conscience or changing law”). I wish I could believe he’d choose good Supreme Court nominees, for instance, but I don’t.
I’m watching closely to see who he chooses for VP, partly because I think that person might serve out McCain’s term or be in place to run four years from now, and partly because his choice will show us whether he values the conservative base at all. Since he’s done nothing but snub conservatives the last few years, he’ll have to earn my vote. As of now, he doesn’t have it.
I want very badly to vote against Obama or Hillary, but I simply can’t see McCain doing anyone any good in the White House. And if we have a backlash in four or eight years against the occupant of the White House, I’d rather have that backlash put in a Republican. And I’d rather see Republicans have to fight against a real Democrat than against a RINO. I simply don’t believe McCain will help the Republican cause at all (except possibly internationally, which I do agree is a big one).
If he chooses the right running mate, I’ll come back to him. For now, a vote for McCain would, for me, be a vote against conscience but also a vote that seems unlikely to bring much benefit at all. Normally the VP doesn’t mean much; this time it does.
Rice hits U.S. ‘birth defect’
By Nicholas Kralev
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national “birth defect” that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country’s very founding.”
“Black Americans were a founding population,” she said. “Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That’s not a very pretty reality of our founding.”
Be sure and listen to this, from Condi Rice Go further down, and click on - TWT Audio: Rice unplugged on race -
I will vote for McCain in part because of the Supreme Court issue. It seems to me that he has more respect for the Constitution than the two law school grads who are running for the Democratic nomination. (I’m an attorney, too. : )) Also, I believe that McCain will be advised on Supreme Court nominees by Ted Olson, which is a good thing.
(I’m sure that there are thousands of Huckabee supporters who will murmur “cult, cult” and stay home on Election Day if McCain chooses Romney as his running mate. Oh well.)
K.
Ted Olson is a talented man. I certainly hope McCain chooses someone other than Romney.
Actually, Victoria, I would agree that the 3/5 compromise was a “birth defect.” They knew it was wrong, but the North wanted the South in the deal. Now, I don’t know when she said these things, but I wonder what she thinks of Obama running and having so much much support.
NJL the piece was written today, as it states in the article, but was said yesterday the 27th:
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national “birth defect” that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country’s very founding.”
Rice hits U.S. ‘birth defect’
By Nicholas Kralev
March 28, 2008
Victoria,
Thanks for the link on #30. Dr. Rice is quite right on the founding defect. The first “revolutionary” killed in that war was a black man. “Lighthorse” Harry Lee tried to have the emancipation of slaves written into the Declaration, but slave-owner Jefferson grabbed the pen.
What a greater nation we might have been if the visionaries had prevailed in that noble moment.
Adios,
You have written: “What a greater nation we might have been if the visionaries had prevailed in that noble moment.”
Very interesting point.
I’m glad you liked it. I have been researching all afternoon, (I was going out but couldn’t resist the temptation to find out more) I have found some other interesting things which I will post after while.
I will share this with you; As you most likely know, I have had many ‘hot disagreements’ with others here on the blog over racism, ’self responsibility’ - ‘moral responsibility’ and ‘victim-hood philosophy’ etc. I’m convinced now more than ever that there are 5 areas, north, south, southwestern and middle west, ALL having problems with both black racism and white racism …. but at the same time very different from one another as to the social aspects of the problem.
Because I live in California, and lived in most of the major cities in this state, I see things much differently than others, such as Kim, whom I had a disagreement with a month ago, but then last week, I read something she wrote, and I could see how she, living in the south, had a completely different ‘take’ because of her VERY DIFFERENT observation ( I have traveled in the south) Those in the north east have another view, and then those who live in the mid-west such as Chicago see things differently. No wonder we clash and have no agreement as to where we are in this country over black and white racism - - - - we are almost like different countries all within the US, trying to solve a problem that is much different in each area.
I know I’m going on here - however, I had no idea that Black Liberation Theology even existed, which boils down to; Marxism is seen as a vehicle to bring about justice, in the Black Liberation Theology - Source of all the world’s problems and of sin is white racism and Black victim-hood and ignoring progress. Adios this is shocking to find out as white Americans. We have found out mainly because Obama’s pastor Wright has been giving these thundering sermons which shocked all of us, wondering how we had missed it.
Victoria,
I’m a little confused by your post.
Do you think Dr. Rice is a promoter of Black Liberation Theology?
Do you think Rice has a moral responsibility problem or a victim mentality?
From the link as I read it, Rice was talking about our founding, when–and I quite agree coming from a long line of Puritan abolitionists–that we as a nation missed a great moment in 1776. In striving for liberty we should have included all Americans, those enslaved and those oppressed by taxation without representation.
And I’m not sure how my So Cal roots have effected my outlook on racism. My hubby works in Compton and we have worshiped in many black churches there. Never heard Black Liberation Theology preached there. I was actually surprised to hear Jeremiah Writght espousing it. I thought most liberation theology, black or otherwise, died with the evil empire.
Okay, sorry went right passed the date. One thing that has always bothered me is that GWB has never gotten real credit for having Condi Rice in the administration in the first place. You’d think the MSM would have gushed all over her considering she’s a woman and a woman of color to boot. She’s quite an accomplished woman.
The Marxism in Black Liberation Theology is no different than the Marxism in the Liberation Theology preached in South America — which Pope John Paul II condemned. He didn’t want it in the RCC because it is a substitution for the Gospel. It is no surprise then that people who have been served by their pastors with these notions choose socialist and leftist candidates. Marxist principles go against everything this nation was founded on. Individual freedoms meant so much to the Founders, even if they did make an economic compromise. I understand now why so many in the past week or so were so opposed to posts on personal responsibility. The individual is lost in Marxism, yet it was that individualism that made the country great, the idea that anyone could succeed through hard work. This is the change in our country which our socialist/leftist friends accept so easily, which conservatives find so appalling, but it fits in with their rejection of Christianity, too. Christ asks each individual to choose, he speaks to individual souls, not to a collective. No wonder they rewrite the history books and teach what’s “wrong” with America. No wonder they want the Constitution to be reinterpreted away from original intent. They need to break down the original principles.
Adios - 37
Sorry Adios, my post didn’t have anything to do with Condi Rice. I was working on several things at one time.
I hope Rice isn’t a promoter of Black Liberation Theology, I haven’t read any evidence so far, to lead me to believe she is or would be.
As far as your question: “Do you think Rice has a moral responsibility problem or a victim mentality?” Adios, perhaps she leans towards a “victim-hood” attitude. She has accomplished a great deal in her life, but one needs to realize that her parents made up their minds that they would have only ONE child, and they would allow their child to have many opportunities, no matter the personal sacrifice they would make. So when I say “victim-hood” I would mean that she might feel this way for all the other people who were black, living in her area and growing up without the parents she had.
Thanks Victoria,
Thant helps. I have never heard Rice speak in any way that would lead me to believe she has a victim mentality.
As to the time she was addressing in the link, that was not a mentality. Blacks really were victims then.
NJL,
Condi Rice is an accomplished lady, I agree with you. I’m not sure WHY the press hasn’t been thrilled with her, she’s nice looking, trim, and educated, she plays the piano beautifully. I believe she wanted to be a concert pianist, but decided against it.
Adios - 40
You are right, however Condi may feel this way based on those around her who didn’t have the advantages that she had. Rice was born November 14, 1954, so by the time she was 16 it was 1970 a lot of change had occured since 1960. The difference between the south, and where Condi Rice was, is very different from Southern, CA. There was no such thing as people sitting at the back of the bus, or separate drinking fountains, or a list of other things. There is historial data from both the south and the southwest which shows a vast difference in the way blacks lived.
I have been reading about her, looking at material she has written or transcripts all afternoon. So having said that, my conclusions are based on what I have researched.
The differences in the areas, and the way they were treated is very interesting. I hope others will research, read and learn exactly what the differences are.
Adios,
The so called ‘Evil Empire’ didn’t have anything to do with Liberation theology, or Black Liberation Theology which was born in the 60’s.
That is true, but it sucked the wind out of its sails since the Soviet Union was suppose to be Marxism’s grand experiment.
I was shocked as a child in So Cal to hear about white only lunch counters, drinking fountains, etc. But LA has also seen two of the nations worst race riots.
I edited a book on Condi recently (not yet released, last I checked, so I don’t want to say more than that), and was quite impressed with her. I doubt victimhood sticks anywhere close to her; she’s a driven, hardworking woman with unbelievable accomplishments.
I wouldn’t vote for her for president (or VP)because she’s more liberal than I’m comfortable with, but I admire her, more after working with the book.
Adios
Yes reading history and talking with many people who witnessed the Watt’s riots, it was a terrible time. But there was more to the story as I have learned through research and those who observed it. First of all the riot’s began when a ‘white police officer’ pulled a black driver in LA over who had been drinking. The man resisted the arrest. What happened after that is history, the rumor spread that police had taken a black pregnant girl and beat her. This was like a tidal wave in the black community, it spread like a fire, and ended in fire. Over 3,800 people were arrested, 34 people died and over 950 were sent to the hospital.
Police were summoned from everywhere, my great uncle who had a very high position in the police force to the north of LA and many other police departments sent men to help with the Watts Riot’s. According to those who witnessed this event in history it was horrific. The military was called in, tanks with military were on the streets in south LA, to make sure that curfew would be kept, there was complete unrest.
What do you think this accomplished?
It was a riot. I don’t think it accomplished anything.
Adios,
I don’t believe it did any good either, actually I believe it set the blacks back, rather than making an intelligent statement which would have made a difference.
I believe its time to assess the statistics of 1960, 1970 and today 2008 and see what they are. In 1965 the Watts riots occurred. Lets go five years into the future and see what has transpired…..then lets jump ahead to the year 2008, where are we, what strides have been made in the black community? Lets look at statistics, what are they per capita. Has anything changed, if so what, and how much? What is the price that the United States Government paid in regards to welfare, those incarcerated in prison, male and female, drugs, arrests for serious crimes - murder, robbery, rape, assault with a deadly weapon. Let’s find the statistics which are needed to see if any of the mass amounts of money were well spent, or if things have become worse or better.
Here are my suggestions, not just for California but for all the states:
Percentage of population per per capita-
Rate of black unmarried pregnancies 1970 & 2008
Rate of black women on Welfare 1970 & 2008s
Rate of black men and women in prison 1970 2008
Rate of black men and women with drug arrests 1970 and 2008
Rate of black men and women receiving GED’s 1970 and 2008
Rate of black men and women graduating from college 1970 and 2008
At this time 2008 we as the American people need to measure progress, its time to do a study which can’t take that much time or money to get to the bottom of this problem. Either the system has worked, or failed, in either case we need to have facts and proof.
So, Victoria, what is your point, and your own suggestion? And what does this have to do with the thread?
Victoria’s suggestion is that an assessment should be made based on facts to see whether the lot of the blacks has improved or not. It has nothing to do with Condi Rice. I just posted in Campaign Roundup about a black program I saw on PBS today, Tony Brown’s Journal. I said:
“I watched Tony Brown’s Journal this morning on PBS, and he had a black school principal from a school in Baltimore as his guest. This principal said to Tony words to the effect that back in his (Tony’s) day, there was desire to learn but no opportunity — which Tony confirmed — but now there is opportunity but no desire. They both agreed that something has been lost in the last few decades in the black community. Draw the conclusions you wish to draw.”
I think you need to compare more than numbers. Once you have that comparison, then you have to ask why, and you have to take this principal’s words, as well as Bill Cosby’s, etc., into account, too, to find out why. And it has to be a hard looksee. I think that’s what our threads last week were really about — the ones that upset our liberal friends so much. Some things that were done in the past decades didn’t work, certainly in the field of education. In the program I watched this morning, both Tony Brown and the black principal concluded that it is education that took every group from the bottom rung to the top in this country and that blacks are no exception to that truth. That’s where the black principal’s comments about “desire” come in. That comes from within. No government program can do that for you or for me or for any race. Mostly, this evaluation has to come from within the black community itself, and it has to decide where it wants to go with or without money from the government, with or without acceptance from people of other races. When the first women wanted to be doctors and lawyers, didn’t they essentially just say “the heck with you, I’m gonna do it anyway?” And then they worked at it, and the walls came tumbling down.
NJL
I believe the KEY is “no desire”- that’s exactly what we have observed. The desire to have something, but lacking the desire to spend the time to learn so that those dreams can become a reality. Too many want it all now. Instead of studying, the time is spent with friends, rap music, and just ‘hanging out’ which doesn’t lead to a successful life with funds to pay even the necessities, food housing, etc -
Again you say it well my friend, “I’m gonna do it anyway” the drive to excel, to take the education that’s offered comes from within the person. Without self determination our dreams would not become a reality. Points well take NJL.
I worked 10 blocks north of Watts for 29 years in a MS. I will suggest looking at the Biblical term “rebellion” in relation to the African American plight.
So many strong African American women are resentful about men, whites, Mexicans and and those in power. You see many African American men with white or Mexican women. What is it about African American women that turns them off?
There is a culture of African American men that all too often sends them to a clash with the law. There is a serious lack of adult men in their lives. Too many of the young men stated they wanted to be a pimp when they grew up.
I saw a common pattern of racism and blaming “whites” for all problems, past, present and future. All too often this went along with pointing at Republicans as the source of all problems.
I have no idea about what to do about these problems. I was stumped then and am stumped now.
Bob,
I have thought of you often as this subject is discussed on the blog, I often remember some of your posts regarding where you taught school. I was hopping you would post your thoughts, I’m interested in knowing, as you are a teacher in that area, your thoughts/beliefs as to WHY blacks are not taking advantage of the educational opportunities at their disposal?
Have you ever been able to understand or dialogue with blacks as to what advantage your students have, when they travel down the ‘victim’ mentality?
You make an observation: “So many strong African American women are resentful about men, whites, Mexicans and and those in power. You see many African American men with white or Mexican women. What is it about African American women that turns them off?” Bob do you think that the men feel it’s a status symbol to pursue women other than black’s, to be seen with them?
I wouldn’t agree with that idea, but it does come to mind as I’ve seen it too.
Many African Americans do take advantage of education, but to all too many, working hard in school is “acting White.”
I don’t have any idea what African Americans think they will get as “victims.”
While some African American men do look at non-African American women as a prize, I often thought that another reason might be that they just don’t want to fight with a wife or girlfriend all the time. I got tired of their pushiness.
There has been many discussion about slaves being brought to the US. Has anyone studied the slaves who were brought first ro the Caribbean Islands or South America? What happened to their descendants, what kind of lives to they live in the Caribbean or South America?
I have been giving more thought to the comments which Condi Rice made on March 27th. The one in question “birth defect”- This remark was made because in my opinion, Rice hasn’t been able to come to terms with her race, which is black. The remark isn’t accurate, as there were many areas in 1776 which were not addressed, such as: women NOT being able to vote. Women weren’t able to own property, or receive divorces in some states, they didn’t receive custody of their children, however if they did, it was only their daughter’s. READ MORE:
The Legal Status of Women, 1776-1830
http://www.historynow.org/03_2006/historian3.html
After viewing this site, and others just like it, I don’t think “birth defect” is applicable. It’s a sly attempt to disrupt any sort of peace between the races, and throw OUT all the other possibilities which could go under the heading of “birth defect” -
The comment Rice made was yet another piece of ‘bitter’ to toss into the pot and stir more dissention between the races. The United States of America is not perfect, but it’s the most wonderful nation that has ever existed, GOD truly has blessed this country.
Sin abounds, there is no reason to say it doesn’t, but making a statement which was made as a declaration against the US, the resentment, bitterness and a deep grudge, Rice hasn’t been able to shed says much about her heart. Rice in my opinion is living in the past, this is NOW, not way back in the 60’s or the 1800’s but NOW. Most of us who are alive right this moment had nothing to do with the past, we weren’t alive, and most of our parents weren’t either.
Without the 3/5ths compromise, according to Hamilton, “no union could possibly have been formed.” They were not concerned with abolishing slavery at the constitutional convention, they were concerned with who would control it — the states or the feds. But they were more than aware - at least some were - that slavery was a “nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed” (Gouverneur Morris). Rutledge, however, said religion and humanity had nothing to do with the issue, it was an issue of trade and commerce. He prevailed by framing the issue as “whether the Southern states shall not shall not be parties to the Union.”
I submit that Morris didn’t go far enough, because the North took advantage of what the South produced. They took the cotton and used in industries in the North. They were all complicit, some more than others perhaps, but all were complicit, because they let Rutledge’s view prevail — that it was an issue of trade and commerce. George Mason made it clear that slavery grew out of greed not just here, but in Britain, too, and he warned if it was allowed to grow, everyone would want their piece of the pie. The view that slavery should be viewed as a political question and not a moral one prevailed.
The Founders did discuss slavery for many, many weeks, and they made the decision that it was better to take the South in as states rather than lose them. I don’t have a problem with the words “birth defect.” Those men chose, and they chose the wrong thing. They knew better, they discussed it at length, and they let political and commecial interests outweigh what they knew was morally wrong. That’s what happens when you say all men are created equal but don’t believe it enough that you put money over the truth.
Victoria,
Not to argue with you, but to disagree on something. I actually think women not voting was a “family friendly” policy. It wouldn’t fly today, of course, but it was a simple understanding of a man being head of his household, and representing his household, and thus it couldn’t be considered “sexist” at all, except by today’s warped understanding that individuals are more important than families and men and women must be treated identically. I don’t have a huge problem with women having the vote (though I do think we’d have been spared a lot of recent bad presidents–Clinton for one–had women not had the vote). Black men not being allowed to vote is really a whole different issue, and indefensible.
I’ve never seen any sign that Condi is uncomfortable with her race (or really with anything about herself), but of course I don’t know her.
NJL,
I fully understand what you are saying, however ALL the freedoms which we now have are important and that includes those for women: property rights, ownership of property, guardianship of children, divorce, voting rights and many other things. I do find the term “birth defect” non-applicable but more to the point a ‘racist statememt’
Let me add this, those who have had children or loved ones who were born with “birth defects” would more than likely find this term hurtful. A child who is born with real abnormalties is heartbreaking to the parents that love the child. They wish the birth defect had never happened, many times it cannot be corrected with surgery. I believe Condi Rice has taken something which is painful, not only to parents, but more often than not to the children who have indured the pain, which can’t be corrected in any way, a low blow. Condi Rice has taken ‘privilege’ with the term “birth defect” -
birth defect
n.
Definition:
A physiological or structural abnormality that develops at or before birth and is present at the time of birth, especially as a result of faulty development, infection, heredity, or injury. Also called congenital anomaly.
Thesaurus
AntonymsNoun
1. birth defect - a defect that is present at birth
congenital abnormality, congenital anomaly,
congenital defect, congenital disorder
ablepharia - a congenital absence of eyelids (partial or complete)
albinism - the congenital absence of
pigmentation in the eyes and skin and hair
anencephalia, anencephaly - a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres
ametria - congenital absence of the uterus
color blindness, color vision deficiency, colour
blindness, colour vision deficiency - genetic inability to distinguish differences in hue
epispadias - a congenital abnormality in males in which the urethra is on the upper surface of the penis
clinocephalism, clinocephaly - a congenital defect in which the top of the head is depressed (concave instead of convex)
clinodactyly - a congenital defect in which one or more toes or fingers are abnormally positioned
macroglossia - a congenital disorder characterized by an abnormally large tongue; often seen in cases of Down’s syndrome
Down syndrome, Down’s syndrome, mongolianism, mongolism, trisomy 21 - a congenital disorder caused by having an extra 21st chromosome; results in a flat face and short stature and mental retardation
acrocephaly, oxycephaly - a congenital abnormality of the skull; the top of the skull assumes a cone shape
cheiloschisis, cleft lip, harelip - a congenital cleft in the middle of the upper lip
cleft palate - a congenital fissure of the hard palate
defect - an imperfection in a bodily system; “visual defects”; “this device permits detection of defects in the lungs”
amelia - congenital absence of an arm or leg
meromelia - congenital absence of part of an arm or leg
encephalocele - protrusion of brain tissue through a congenital fissure in the skull
meningocele - a congenital anomaly of the central nervous system in which a sac protruding from the brain or the spinal meninges contains cerebrospinal fluid (but no nerve tissue)
myelomeningocele - a congenital defect of the central nervous system in which a sac containing part of the spinal cord and its meninges protrude through a gap in the vertebral column; frequently accompanied by hydrocephalus and mental retardation
plagiocephaly - congenital malformation of the skull in which the main axis of the skull is oblique
polysomy - congenital defect of having one or more extra chromosomes in somatic cells
hermaphrodism, hermaphroditism - congenital condition in which external genitalia and internal sex organs have both male and female characteristics
pseudohermaphroditism - congenital condition in which a person has external genitalia of one sex and internal sex organs of the other sex
scaphocephaly - congenital malformation of the skull which is long and narrow; frequently accompanied by mental retardation
congenital heart defect - a birth defect involving the heart
rachischisis, schistorrhachis, spina bifida - a not uncommon congenital defect in which a vertebra is malformed; unless several vertebrae are affected or there is myelomeningocele there are few symptoms; can be diagnosed by amniocentesis
spinocerebellar disorder - any of several congenital disorders marked by degeneration of the cerebellum and spinal cord resulting in spasticity and ataxia
hyperdactyly, polydactyly - birth defect characterized by the presence of more than the normal number of fingers or toes
syndactylism, syndactyly - birth defect in which there is partial or total webbing connecting two or more fingers or toes
ankyloglossia, tongue tie - a congenital anomaly in which the mucous membrane under the tongue is too short limiting the mobility of the tongue