Conservative bloggers are expressing deep skepticism about the possibility of Condoleezza Rice as Mitt Romney’s running mate - both as to the validity of the reports she’s high on the list and her qualifications for the No. 2 spot.
“I don’t know who is hitting the crack rock tonight in the rumor mill, but bull shiitake mushrooms,” RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote. “Condelizza Rice is pro-abortion. She worked for George Bush for eight years.”
Continue ReadingErickson’s reasons for disbelief are widely shared: Right-leaning bloggers think her support for abortion rights make her an anathema to the GOP base, and her time working for the Bush administration make her unacceptable to independents, one of the key voting groups.
“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?,” HotAir’s pseudonymous AllahPundit wrote. “Why not double down and promise that Hank Paulson will be back at Treasury if Mitt wins? “
There’s also a general sense in the blogosphere that Rice would bring liabilities to the ticket without delivering any new voters.
“Rice’s views on abortion (she has said that she is ‘mildly pro-choice’) and her years in the Bush administration seem likely to generate controversy, while I’m not seeing any group of voters that she would automatically attract,” National Review’s Katrina Trinko wrote.
“Not only will Romney be defending Bain up through the election, now he’s going to have to be defending Bush and Bush’s policies right up through the election,” conservative talker Mark Levin said last night on his radio show, adding that he meant no offense to Rice.
The most scathing take came from The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison.
“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,” he wrote earlier this week.
“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.”
While conservative bloggers didn’t love the idea of Rice as vice president, they praised the Romney campaign - if it was the Romney campaign - for successfully changing the subject after a day in which he was accused of lying about when he left Bain Capital.
“If this is Team Mitt trying to change the subject…good for them,” Drew M. wrote on Ace of Spades. “Maybe they can get the media chasing squirrels for awhile.”
“I don’t know who is hitting the crack rock tonight in the rumor mill, but bull shiitake mushrooms,” RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote. “Condelizza Rice is pro-abortion. She worked for George Bush for eight years.”
Continue ReadingErickson’s reasons for disbelief are widely shared: Right-leaning bloggers think her support for abortion rights make her an anathema to the GOP base, and her time working for the Bush administration make her unacceptable to independents, one of the key voting groups.
“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?,” HotAir’s pseudonymous AllahPundit wrote. “Why not double down and promise that Hank Paulson will be back at Treasury if Mitt wins? “
There’s also a general sense in the blogosphere that Rice would bring liabilities to the ticket without delivering any new voters.
“Rice’s views on abortion (she has said that she is ‘mildly pro-choice’) and her years in the Bush administration seem likely to generate controversy, while I’m not seeing any group of voters that she would automatically attract,” National Review’s Katrina Trinko wrote.
“Not only will Romney be defending Bain up through the election, now he’s going to have to be defending Bush and Bush’s policies right up through the election,” conservative talker Mark Levin said last night on his radio show, adding that he meant no offense to Rice.
The most scathing take came from The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison.
“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,” he wrote earlier this week.
“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.”
While conservative bloggers didn’t love the idea of Rice as vice president, they praised the Romney campaign - if it was the Romney campaign - for successfully changing the subject after a day in which he was accused of lying about when he left Bain Capital.
“If this is Team Mitt trying to change the subject…good for them,” Drew M. wrote on Ace of Spades. “Maybe they can get the media chasing squirrels for awhile.”