Drudge: Condi Rice near the top of Romney’s VP shortlist? Update: “No Condi”

posted at 8:56 pm on July 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

I gave you two possibilities in the update to Erika’s post, before we knew who the “surprising” new frontrunner was. Either it was a bona fide scoop or it was a red herring deliberately leaked by Team Mitt to draw the media away from today’s Bain storyline. Now that we know who the alleged surprise frontrunner is, my money’s on the second explanation.

Late Thursday evening, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign launched a new fundraising drive, ‘Meet The VP’ — just as Romney himself has narrowed the field of candidates to a handful, sources reveal.

And a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!

The timing of the announcement is now set for ‘coming weeks’.

It was Condi who received two standing ovations at Romney’s Utah retreat a few weeks ago, and everyone left with her name on their lips.

Any reason to believe there’s something to this? Arguably, yes: This piece by Bill Kristol published last Friday seemed strange and random at the time, but in light of tonight’s Drudge tease, it looks in hindsight like maybe BK got a tip from someone who’s tapped in and seized the opportunity to look prescient. Coincidentally, Rush Limbaugh mentioned her on the air yesterday too; doubly coincidentally, Peggy Noonan’s new column in the Journal tomorrow is all about how awesome Condi Rice might be as VP. I didn’t take Ann Romney seriously when she hinted that Team Mitt was considering a woman for the ticket, but the sudden Condi buzz among big-name Republicans makes me wonder if either something’s leaked or if Team Mitt is feeding this to friends who have microphones in order to try to create some advance grassroots buzz for his eventual pick.

And yet, I don’t buy it. Problem one: Bush, Bush, Bush. As I’ve said before, Jeb Bush can’t run for president because he’s related to Dubya but Dubya’s handpicked NSA-turned-Secretary-of-State is A-OK as number two? Why not double down and promise that Hank Paulson will be back at Treasury if Mitt wins? In fact, ironically, Condi may deliver the worst of both worlds. To doves, she’s a symbol of Bush’s alleged crazed hawkishness; to hawks, she’s a dove who can’t be trusted. Not sure how many foreign-policy points there are in that.

Problem two: Last I checked, Condi’s pro-choice. Admittedly, as you’ll see below, her position comes with lots of caveats, but so what? That won’t spare Romney a headache with social conservatives that he could have avoided by picking a veep from the 98 percent or so of prominent Republican officials who are pro-life. Besides, as John McCormack noted a few days ago, Romney’s already pledged not to choose a pro-choicer. Even if Condi’s had a Romney-esque “awakening” on this issue in later life and has now become pro-life, that only means that instead of having one candidate on the ticket whose reversal on abortion seems mighty opportunistic, we’ll have two.

Problem three: If Mitt’s thinking that he’ll earn huge diversity points with women and minority voters by running with Condi, I’d like to know why. Obama won a bigger share of women’s votes four years ago than Kerry, Gore, or Clinton did despite McCain having Palin on the ticket. (Reagan won women in a landslide after Mondale made Ferraro his number two.) The left will attack any woman and/or minority VP choice viciously as “inauthentic” and illegitimate in order to avoid losing any women or minority votes to the GOP. Look no further than the fervent effort today to paint Romney as some kind of racist for agreeing to speak to the NAACP and then refusing to remove his standard stump line about repealing ObamaCare to please them. There’s no one way they’re going to let a Republican candidate get even the tiniest, slipperiest foothold with a constituency they depend on for political survival. If Condi’s the pick, we’ll spend a solid three weeks hearing about her buying shoes during Katrina even though she’s since addressed that at length. That’s not to say that liberal attacks will necessarily succeed or that the prospect of them should determine Mitt’s choice, just to say that adding diversity to the ticket is by no means a slam dunk in terms of peeling away some of the Democrats’ core demographics.

Exit question: What’s the deal? Is this legit or is this a red herring being floated for political reasons? If the latter, you can already anticipate the left’s spin if/when Mitt ends up passing over Condi for boring white guy Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty.

Update: NRO’s Robert Costa is hearing otherwise:

Top Romney source tells me “no Condi.” More: Romney wants someone more comfortable in ‘attack dog’ mode

I hear a few UT retreat attendees (donors, etc.) are stirring Condi buzz. Per people I trust, it’s not Boston-driven


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Hey Paulbot:

So the latest report says that Iran could have nukes that can hit the US in 3 years.

Should we still just allow Iran to whatever they want, to say that they deserve the right to get nukes just like we do as RuPaul says??

LevinFan on July 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Here’s where the premise is faulty: should we allow Iran to whatever they want. Iran is a sovereign nation. We have no authority over Iran; we are not an empire, right?

I reject your premise.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM

First question: Define communism.

Second question: Look up communism on wikipedia, how does the widely accepted definition of communism differ from yours?

Third question: What policies has Obama enacted (I want bill numbers) that come anywhere close to what communism was?

If you can come up with something he’s done that is literally communism, go for it. Spotlights on you. I have an open mind here.

triple on July 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Useful idiots were and are dime a dozen. Morons like you were the first ones exterminated by communists once their useful idiocy was past the “use by” date, any who had even a bit of brain left just inn time and made the beeline to USA, they are what these days are known as “academia” and “Hollywood”. Learn some history, idiot.

You’re as stupid as your posts imply, so thanks for confirmation.

riddick on July 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM

That wasn’t an example of communism, nor is “imposing his standards over the will of the people and laws of congress” an example of, or indicative of communism.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Really, the policy of adding more and more people on the government subsistence isn’t a move toward government control of the people? Really?
Taking over private companies isn’t a move toward communism?

Taking over energy isn’t a move toward communism?

Government control of distribution of medicine, health, energy, autos, isn’t a move towards communism?

A war on “class” isn’t a move toward communism?

An attempt to control profits isn’t that step?

Really? I don’t even think you so stupid as to not believe that each of those policies were promoted by Obama and this administration…but you have an “open mind” so I am sure this will just fly right through that open mind and out the other door.

So much for your “open mind”, of course he isn’t proposing an communist ideas…taking over energy, autos, health, medicine is just to make things better for all of his people…oh, btw, the ruling class is exempt from all of these policies, they have to be kept pure of these constraints….yeah, it’s all to make all of the people better off, because the government knows best.

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Every few days the Mitt campaign should “leak” a new front runner for VP.
It chews up resources of the Obama campaign as they try build their opposition research.

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Really, the policy of adding more and more people on the government subsistence isn’t a move toward government control of the people? Really?
Taking over private companies isn’t a move toward communism?

Taking over energy isn’t a move toward communism?

Government control of distribution of medicine, health, energy, autos, isn’t a move towards communism?

A war on “class” isn’t a move toward communism?

An attempt to control profits isn’t that step?

Really? I don’t even think you so stupid as to not believe that each of those policies were promoted by Obama and this administration…but you have an “open mind” so I am sure this will just fly right through that open mind and out the other door.

So much for your “open mind”, of course he isn’t proposing an communist ideas…taking over energy, autos, health, medicine is just to make things better for all of his people…oh, btw, the ruling class is exempt from all of these policies, they have to be kept pure of these constraints….yeah, it’s all to make all of the people better off, because the government knows best.

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Looks like you have a lot in common with your friend triple. Both of you are enamored with using logical fallacies.

You were asked to name something that was literally communism, and all you came up with was, “Yesterday the Obama administration gutted those federal work rules, ignoring the will of Congress,” and then proclaiming “that was easy” in coming up with an example.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM

You were asked to name something that was literally communism, and all you came up with was, “Yesterday the Obama administration gutted those federal work rules, ignoring the will of Congress,” and then proclaiming “that was easy” in coming up with an example.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM

You asked for an example, I gave you one, if you don’t think that adding more and more people to government welfare, putting them on government programs is a move towards communism, along with the other policies I stated. Since “communism” is not definitive, it’s in various degrees, and some progressing others regressing, you will just say “it’s not communism”, what is important is the direction we are moving, and under Obama it’s rather obvious, he is a government statist, a person who believes all rights and privileged flow from the government, and I gave you examples of that movement…fine, you won’t believe anything, any facts, if they disagree with your beliefs. You just ignore them.
If I told you he took over a private company, that he closed down oil drilling for no reason, you would just ignore it and pretend it wasn’t a pattern. You will just call any fact a “logical fallacy”.

That’s how you think…I won’t sway you, I posted for others to show how stupid you are, not to convince you.
Thanks for showing us how “open minded” you are…and how utterly naive and ill informed you are.

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM

You asked for an example, I gave you one, if you don’t think that adding more and more people to government welfare, putting them on government programs is a move towards communism, along with the other policies I stated. Since “communism” is not definitive, it’s in various degrees, and some progressing others regressing, you will just say “it’s not communism”, what is important is the direction we are moving, and under Obama it’s rather obvious, he is a government statist, a person who believes all rights and privileged flow from the government, and I gave you examples of that movement…fine, you won’t believe anything, any facts, if they disagree with your beliefs. You just ignore them.
If I told you he took over a private company, that he closed down oil drilling for no reason, you would just ignore it and pretend it wasn’t a pattern. You will just call any fact a “logical fallacy”.

That’s how you think…I won’t sway you, I posted for others to show how stupid you are, not to convince you.
Thanks for showing us how “open minded” you are…and how utterly naive and ill informed you are.

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I didn’t ask for an example. I correctly pointed out that the answer you gave was not an example of communism.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

You were asked to name something that was literally communism, and all you came up with was, “Yesterday the Obama administration gutted those federal work rules, ignoring the will of Congress,” and then proclaiming “that was easy” in coming up with an example.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Wow, yet another moron, seems its a day for dimwits to show what and who they are.

Do you understand that PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISM, as implemented by a COMMUNIST PARTY, is what drives the idiot in the WH?

If you still cannot comprehend the notion go back to your middle school teacher come September, you may get lucky that he/she just may be not a full communist party supporter and explain to you what communist parties across the globe stand for and how they implement their policies: Step by step, one royal edict at a time, same as Manchurian has been doing since 2009 by royal decree, err, Executive Orders.

You know that college kids demonstration earlier this week where SECRET FRIGGING SERVICE was used to disrupt it under the pretense of “suspicious package” (was Rep. Weiner was in town or what?), never mind it doesn’t take a full day to “clear a suspicious package”. The ONLY different between that and how Putin is using OMON troops to same effect to suppress the opposition is the use of force. YET, but its getting awfully closer by day.

Your idiot in the WH achieved more of the communist party doctrine in less than 4 years than even Stalin and Co. were able to achieve in that same time frame.

riddick on July 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM

riddick on July 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Someone get the nurse.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM

That wasn’t an example of communism, nor is “imposing his standards over the will of the people and laws of congress” an example of, or indicative of communism.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Yet you commented that is “wasn’t an example” but you didn’t ask for an example…good grief, such a child.
I don’t think there is anything anyone could say to you that would be of any use to you…you live in your own fantasy world.
I hope you find a job and are productive someday.

That wasn’t an example of communism, nor is “imposing his standards over the will of the people and laws of congress” an example of, or indicative of communism.

Dante on July 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM

right2bright on July 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Video: Condi “would be a wonderful vice president,” says Palin

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/13/palin_condi_rice_would_be_a_wonderful_vice_president.html

Axe on July 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Rice is pro pro pro pro choice.

Good luck with that.

Dave Rywall on July 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Rice is pro pro pro pro choice.

Good luck with that.

Dave Rywall on July 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM

An intelligent statement from you for once.

Although the anti-abortion movement isn’t going much of anywhere in the first place, the first time she spoke out about her views on that, Rightwingistan would explode like Mount Saint Helens.

MelonCollie on July 14, 2012 at 12:22 AM

This is all just Matt Drudge’s kabuki coverage trying to manipulate the process to cull the social cons from the selection process.

With his hatred of the Church, I can only imagine how his liberal mind would explode at the thought of Jindal being a heartbeat away. I bet good money that if that happens, his site would suddenly turn pro-Obama again like it was before the last election.

StubbleSpark on July 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6