Right Woman, Right Place, Right Time

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    She Makes Us Proud
    By Rich Lowry, National Review
    February 10, 2005

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's just-concluded trip to Europe signals that the United States is back in the diplomacy business in earnest again. Part of the reason is that after four years of Colin Powell, the United States now has a secretary of state in full.

    A contradiction President Bush's critics have never confronted is that they spent the past four years lamenting the Bush administration's poor diplomacy at the same time they celebrated its top diplomat. They only turned on Powell when he took the administration's case against Saddam Hussein to the world with his February 2003 speech to the United Nations -- never mind this is the sort of thing written in a secretary of state's job description (it wasn't Powell's fault that the prewar intelligence was so grievously flawed).

    Rice was helped in Europe by having a wind at her back from Bush's re-election and the Jan. 30 vote in Iraq, and there will surely be difficult days ahead for her (can you say Pyongyang?). But her tenure, following directly on Powell's heels, will probably offer a tale of two secretaries of state.

    Rice gets things Powell never did. For instance, that leaking to Bob Woodward and other Washington Post reporters is not the secretary of state's chief responsibility. Powell was so obviously the primary source for so many journalistic accounts of intra-administration fights that he often deserved a co-byline. Or that being known as a dissenter from administration policy only undermines your standing and your credibility as a spokesman for the United States.

    Powell was the least-traveled secretary of state in 30 years, for a couple of reasons. One was that he wanted to stay home to be better able to engage in the vicious intramural fighting necessary to undermine the president's policy. The other was that he considered travel an inconvenience. That is understandable, even if Powell didn't have to deal, like the rest of us, with security lines and metal-detector wandings. But shouldn't it have been a sign he was better suited to be secretary of the interior?

    Rice, in contrast, supports the president's policy and is loyal to him, so she has no need to hang around in Washington to indulge in bureaucratic back-stabbing. She is also young and vigorous, a workout obsessive who could beat most other foreign ministers in the world in a 5k race and is up to the rigors of foreign travel.

    This is a good thing, because Rice's trip proved the Woody Allen truism that 80 percent of life is showing up. If you are willing to stand before a potentially hostile foreign audience (in Paris, of all places!) and explain U.S. policy, or stand next to a foreign counterpart and take skeptical questions from reporters, your very act of being there shows a level of attention and caring that wins points. And when you are as winsome as Condi Rice, you might actually move some people. Has Gerhard Schroeder yet fully recovered from his Rice-induced swoon?

    Indeed, it would take a heart of stone and an utter disregard for symbolism not to be a little moved at the images of Rice shaking hands with foreign dignitaries. Those pictures fairly yelled -- "Look, this is America!" The message of her ascension to the top echelon of the U.S. government couldn't have come at a better time. When Bush is trying to reform a part of the world that has the lowest possible regard for women, Rice implicitly says women are as capable as men. When Bush wants Middle Eastern governments to respect pluralism and people of all faith and ethnicities, Rice implicitly says race and creed needn't matter. When Bush is extolling the power of freedom and American ideals, Rice implicitly says liberty and respect for human dignity can triumph over injustice, as they did in her 1950s-era Birmingham, Ala.

    She, in other words, is a secretary of state to make us proud. Her trip therefore coupled national pride with diplomatic nicities. What a combination.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I expected no less. Going to be the one to watch!
     
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Oohh man, you scared me for second.
    I thought this was going to be a Hillary Clinton for 2008 post. I half expected them to start up already, and we're still more than 3 1/2 years off from it.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    to say nothing of her sheer brilliance when it comes to dealing with Russia and communism.
     
  5. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Comrade, be assured that you will NEVER see a positive Hillary post from me. In my opinion, she is one phoney baloney and more dangerous than her husband because she is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who DOES NOT depend on polls to form her political opinions. She is good at reading the current political climate and has now set her course to convince everyone she is a centrist.
     
  6. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Every single person who runs for President does this same thing. The large portion of the Population are centrist and seek to have a Candidate in office of the same bent.
     
  7. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    That’s what we’ve been told for years. Maybe it was true years ago, but I don’t believe most people are “centrist” today. During last fall’s campaign, I read somewhere—or maybe I heard it on PBS or one of the cable news talk shows-- that in the United States, politically people fall into category by the philosophy they hold rather than political party, and that they cast their vote on foreign policy, economics and social issues based on this philosophy, whether they are Republican (conservative or liberal), Democrat (conservative or liberal), or independent. Just the label “Republican” or “Democrat” doesn’t mean too much; more importantly it’s whether you are a “Republican” conservative/liberal, or a “Democrat” conservative/liberal.

    This made great sense to me, and I think it more clearly reflects the state of politics in America today. For example, I am a Republican conservative who votes for a candidate based primarily on how that candidate best reflects my views on foreign policy, economics, and social issues, while I would say Lincoln Chaffee and Susan Collins are Republican liberals who do not reflect my views on foreign policy, economics or social issues. Just saying that Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins and I are all Republicans is not as true as saying that Lincoln Chaffee and Susan Collins are liberal Republicans, and I am a conservative Republican. It’s the conservative or liberal view—and not the “centrist” view--that defines Americans politically, in my view.
     

Share This Page