Condoleezza Rice

Doug Jones Vs. Roy Moore: A Chance For Democrats To Gain An Alabama Senate Seat In December

The special election to fill Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s Alabama Senate seat is set for December 12.

It could be a Christmas and New Year’s gift for the Democrats, if Doug Jones can win that seat from right wing extremist Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who will cause nightmares, if elected, for the Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and would be more outrageous and irritating than Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Moore is supported by the Alt Right and Breitbart News, headed by Stephen Bannon, and he has extremist views about women including anti abortion advocacy, anti gay rights for gays and lesbians including marriage, anti Muslims, pro firearms including wielding his gun at a campaign rally, nonbeliever in global warming and evolution, promoter of the Barack Obama Birther Conspiracy beliefs, advocate of nativist and racist beliefs, and calls America a “Christian nation” governed by God, not by the Constitution, and insisted on a Ten Commandments Monument at the Alabama Judicial Building while he served as Chief Justice, before his removal.

Doug Jones is a former US Attorney, who pursued and prosecuted two Ku Klux Klansmen involved in the infamous Birmingham, Alabama Black Church Bombing in 1963, which killed four young African American girls, including friends of Condoleezza Rice, who lived in Birmingham and was around the age of these young girls when they were killed. Jones was able to gain convictions and imprisonment for these two individuals in 2001 and 2002, nearly four decades after the murders, a major accomplishment.

Jones has gained awards for his civil rights and environmental commitment, and would add to the possibility of a Democratic party takeover of the US Senate in the midterm 2018 elections, as ordinarily, it would seem highly unlikely that the Democrats could gain this particular Senate seat, and will have a very difficult time to gain three seats, since there are so few Republicans seeking reelection in 2018.

But, hard to believe, as outrageous as Jeff Sessions was in this Senate seat, Roy Moore would be far worse and more despicable than Sessions, so Democrats need to do everything possible to promote Doug Jones to the US Senate over the next two months.

Secretary Of State: More Prominent Public Figures Historically Than Presidency!

The Secretary of State serves at the will of the President of the United States, and its ranks have included future Presidents; Presidential candidates who were Secretary of State and later lose the Presidency; Presidential losers who then become Secretary of State; and Presidential contenders who do not get nominated for President, but later become Secretary of State. The Secretary of State also is often a great public figure who becomes notable for his background, without having sought the Presidency. Witness the following:

Presidents who were Secretary of State—Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan

Presidential candidates who were Secretary of State and later lose the Presidency—Henry Clay, James G. Blaine

Presidential Losers who then become Secretary of State—Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Lewis Cass, James G. Blaine, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, John Kerry

Presidential contenders who do not get nominated for President, but later become Secretary of State—John C. Calhoun, William Seward, Edmund Muskie, Hillary Clinton.

Great public figures notable for their background, without having sought the Presidency, but become Secretary of State—John Marshall, Edward Everett, Hamilton Fish, William Evarts, Richard Olney, John Sherman, John Hay, Elihu Root, Robert Lansing, Frank Kellogg, Henry Stimson, Cordell Hull, James F. Byrnes, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George P. Shultz, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice.

So 42 of the 68 people who have served as Secretary of State are prominent in American history, while some of our 43 Presidents have NOT been notable in their careers or in their Presidency!

Other Than Hillary Clinton, What Woman Could Be A Viable Presidential Nominee In 2016?

Hillary Clinton is considered highly likely to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016, and most think she will, ultimately, decide to run, although there are those who have doubts.

But if Hillary chose not to run, is there any other woman who could be seen as a viable candidate for the White House in 2016?

On the Republican side, really no one is ready and able to mount a serious race, as members of the House of Representatives have never been the nominee of a major political party, other than President James A. Garfield in 1880, and he was, tragically, assassinated in 1881, after serving only a few months in the Presidency.

Yes, there are a few Republicans women governors, but to believe that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez or Kansas Governor Mary Fallin can be considered serious Presidential candidates is to be delusional.

As far as women Senators in the Republican Party, there are the highly qualified Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, but neither seems interested or, really viable, as a Presidential nominee. New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte might be interested, but is not seen by many as a heavyweight in the party apparatus, but rather a person who hangs around Arizona Senator John McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham more than is wise to do.

Of course, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is loved by the Tea Party Movement, but it is laughable to imagine her running, and she has absolutely no chance to win the nomination.

Condoleezza Rice is well qualified, but the former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, has always turned down any pressure to run for high office!

So, realistically, if there is to be a woman President, and other than Hillary Clinton, it will have to be a Democrat–and realistically it would be a Senator–one of three, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, or Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Warren would be popular with the leftist base in the Democratic Party, but has been in the Senate only one year, and would be 67 in 2016, just two years younger than Hillary Clinton. She inspires many people, including this author, and would fight Wall Street, which few others would.

Gillibrand has been in the Senate since 2010, and is very active and inspiring, but she comes from a state where Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo compete for support, and it is hard to imagine her at age 50 in 2016, being able to mount a campaign for President in 2016. She has made the fight against sexual abuse in the military a major issue, which has been under the radar for much too long.

So that leaves Klobuchar, who has served in the Senate since 2007, and is regarded very highly for her state government experience as Hennepin County (Minneapolis) Attorney for eight years, and can appeal to the heartland of the nation in a way that neither Warren nor Gillibrand could do. Her personality and communication ability is just as good, if not better, than Warren or Gillbrand, and at age 56 in 2016, she is closer to the ideal age to run for President. She is someone with a great progressive record, who has been too often overlooked by news media and others who follow politics.

But one thing is clear: No one is as qualified or outstanding among women politicians as Hillary Rodham Clinton! She has her faults and shortcomings, but no one matches her credentials!

The “Evil” Dick Cheney Influence To Divide Wyoming Republicans: Civil War To Be Waged For Daughter Liz!

Dick Cheney, arguably the most powerful Vice President in American history, and also in so many ways the most evil, due to his lying, deception, manipulations, and promotion of war in Iraq on false pretenses, has refused to be quiet as a former Vice President.

The man who once had a decent reputation, as Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford; Wyoming Congressman and Congressional leader, and Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, is seen by many as having gone berserk after September 11, and used his dominating personality to manipulate George W. Bush, and in unison with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, undermined the influence of Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, convincing Bush to start a war in Iraq that had no justification, and was based on lies. Cheney also endorsed torture against terrorism suspects, and has been totally on the war path against President Barack Obama, and is loved by the far right of his party, including the Tea Party activists.

Cheney has also graced us with his daughter, Liz Cheney, an overly aggressive, abrasive, and caustic commentator on Fox News Channel, who is now considering running for the US Senate in Wyoming, against a fellow conservative Republican, Mike Enzi, whose “crime” is that he is low key, and actually had the “temerity” to work across the aisle sometimes with Democratic Senators, although he is a reliable conservative when it comes to his votes.

Cheney, his daughter, and his wife Lynne Cheney, also a very aggressive, caustic individual in her own right in her past public career, are ready to split the GOP in Wyoming, by trying to force Enzi to retire when he wishes to run again, or compete in a contested, divisive primary, due to Liz Cheney’s ambitions and Dick Cheney’s willingness to play “hard ball”, even against a fellow Republican and former friend.

In other words, what the Cheneys want, they intend to get, no matter what the cost! And realize that it is clear to anyone who watches Liz Cheney, that if she were to win the Senate seat, she would become a thorn in the side of Barack Obama and any other Democrat, would refuse to cooperate on anything,and would have long range ambitions to become the first woman Republican Presidential candidate, if not the first woman President.

No one should be under the illusion that Liz Cheney would wait patiently to run for President. Do not be surprised that she might run as a brand new Senator from the smallest state in population in 2016, and could not be ignored as a factor! This woman would be as aggressive, nasty, and confrontational as her infamous parents!

If the Cheneys want, they go to “war” against the opposition, even if a fellow Republican Senator who has done nothing wrong, except to avoid unnecessary confrontation!

The one good thing is the possibility that a Republican “civil war” in a state as “red” as Wyoming could actually give the Democrats the chance to win that seat, if they can come up with a solid opponent. That would be the ultimate slap in the face of the Cheneys and their party, if they caused a loss that would otherwise not happen, were it not for Liz Cheney’s personality and ambitions!

Ten Years Since Onset Of Iraq War: Worst Foreign Policy Disaster In American History

It has been ten years since George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and others took America into a war on false pretenses, a war in Iraq that turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.

It was a war of choice, based on faulty intelligence, but backed by many major newspapers and by Democratic political leaders, as well as Republicans.

The Iraq War prevented America from winning the Afghanistan War, as it diverted our attention from the war against Al Qaeda..

It led to about 4,500 dead American soldiers and about 32,500 wounded. And the involvement was the longest war in American history, except for the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

The question is whether the United States has learned anything, and will not allow itself to be fooled and misled about intelligence in the future, as we face possible threats of war with Iran, ironically the more dangerous nation than Iraq, and emboldened by our war there to build up its nuclear potential.

The Republican “Diversity” Primary Or Jeb Bush For President?

It seems more and more likely that the Republican Party will do their best to put a person of diversity status, either ethnically or gender, on their 2016 Presidential ticket as the only way to have a chance to win the White House.

This “diversity” primary contest for being on the national ticket would include:

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina
Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire
Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico
Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

So overall, there are seven Senators, four Governors, three Congresswomen well known enough, and Condoleezza Rice for the Republicans to choose from to have a “diversity” nominee for President or Vice President.

And when one looks at the list, it is clear that the only “real” choices are Rubio, Cruz, Ayotte, Jindal, Haley, and Rice, as a member of the House has not been nominated since 1880 (James Garfield), and the other choices are far less known, and come from smaller states in population, which undermines their candidacy. And Murkowski and Collins are far too “Moderate” to be the nominee of a right wing Republican Party!

But Rice is highly unlikely to be interested, although easily the most qualified of the six who could be nominated. Jindal and Haley have come across as mean spirited, uncaring Governors on the subject of immigration and health care. Ayotte has not distinguished herself by connecting to John McCain and Lindsey Graham as a “replacement” for Joe Lieberman. Cruz, being born in Canada, will create the issue of his eligibility to run for President, and his use of “McCarthyism” strategy against Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, and his basic aggressive style after less than two months in office will not do him well in a Presidential campaign.

So Marco Rubio, with all of his “warts” and shortcomings, stands out as the best “diversity” candidate, with his coming from Florida, the fourth largest state, and the largest state in play in a Presidential campaign, being a plus!

But it could be that being from Florida is also a plus for former Governor Jeb Bush, who if only he could change his last name, would be the likely best choice for his party.

It could all come down to a final race between former Governor Jeb Bush, whose wife is Mexican American and speaks excellent Spanish, and Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban American a full generation younger than Jeb Bush!

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

The Battle Between Bush I Loyalists And Bush II Loyalists Begins Over Chuck Hagel Nomination For Defense Secretary

Hard to conceive, but the battle between loyalists to President George H. W. Bush and loyalists to President George W. Bush has begun over the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense in his second term in the Presidency.

The “old guard” Establishment Conservatives around the first President Bush, including Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the former President himself, have no major problems with Hagel.

On the other hand, the neoconservatives, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and conservative ideologues like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Charles Krauthammer all will find Hagel wanting in his foreign and defense policy views. It is not clear where President George W. Bush will come down, but in theory, he would agree with his key advisers and consultants mentioned above. Note that Powell and Rice are more linked to father Bush, and both were certainly involved in major battles with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others during the second Bush Administration.

It will be an interesting battle, and it is likely that many Republican Senators will refuse to back Hagel, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, newly sworn in Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has particularly gone on the attack already against Hagel.

A key person to watch will be Senator John McCain of Arizona, who still harbors resentment that Hagel backed Obama over him in the 2008 Presidential campaign, and vehemently disagrees with Hagel on issues involving Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran. McCain has been attacking Obama on every front lately, but will he concede that Obama has a right to the Defense Secretary he wants?

Stay tuned for the fireworks, particularly to wonder where Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will take their stand–with the old line establishment figures, which include also many military and naval leaders; or with the neoconservatives who brought us into long, drawn out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with very little success!

The Susan Rice Controversy: Much Ado Over Nothing, And Making John McCain, Lindsey Graham And Kelly Ayotte Look Ridiculous!

The continuing controversy over UN Ambassador Susan Rice and her statements on Sunday talk shows about the events in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others on September 11, has been blown so out of proportion that it borders on the ridiculous at this point!

A Fox News Channel and Mitt Romney inspired incident, it has led Senator John McCain to look like a total fool; Senator Lindsey Graham to look as if he is seeking for an issue to hold off Tea Party opposition to his reelection in South Carolina in 2014; and Senator Kelly Ayotte to come across as a freshman woman Senator who is hitching on the issue to make herself noticed, but in an embarrassing way that will trivialize her hope to become a national figure, after she was passed over by Mitt Romney to be his running mate for Vice President. Meanwhile, Senator Joe Lieberman, usually part of the “gang of three”, but now retiring, has decided NOT to join this cry for Rice’s head, showing some real intelligence as he leaves the Senate, but with Ayotte replacing him, to her degradation!

For anyone to be held so accountable for what he or she says on Sunday talk shows as Susan Rice is being held, is totally off the wall, and by that standard, Dick Cheney would have been impeached and removed from the Vice Presidency; Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell would have been drummed out of office, or in the case of Rice, denied the chance to be Secretary of State; and McCain and Graham themselves would be forced out of the Senate for past incorrect, inaccurate, or stupid comments!

Susan Rice is perfectly qualified to be Secretary of State, and instead has been pilloried in a manner unbecoming her distinction, her education and academic accomplishments, and her distinguished public career. Her education and brilliance, when compared to the measly such accomplishments of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte, makes them all look more like the jealous competitors for academic excellence who decide to downgrade their successful competitor by spreading innuendo, rumors, character assassination, and ridicule, because they have nothing else to offer.

All three Senators should apologize profusely to Susan Rice, stop their bull “feathers”, and get down to serious business serving their constituents, and stop seeking the limelight. And if Kelly Ayotte, the only one with serious long term potential, wishes to be seen seriously, she had better abandon these two Senators past their prime, and stake out her own identity, or become totally irrelevant, and a “joke” in Senate circles!

Why Chris Christie Will NEVER Be President Of The United States!

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has indicated he will run for reelection in 2013, an off year when only the New York City Mayoralty and Virginia Governorship compete for attention.

But with a new NYC Mayor and a new Virginia Governor to be selected, identity unknown, Chris Christie will be focused on more than usual, because he is a potential Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2016. He already leads Marco Rubio, Condoleezza Rice, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan, respectively, in a public opinion poll on 2016.

There are those who think Chris Christie might be the next President of the United States, but this author and blogger will explain now why Christie is NOT going to be the next President, for many reasons, in no special order. So here goes!

Chris Christie could very well be defeated for reelection by the charismatic Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker. It should be a competitive race.

Even if Christie wins a second term, he will not become President because:

1, He is much too outspoken, controversial, opinionated, to become our President. He rubs many people wrong, comes across as a bully to many, is crude and rude, and would wear thin in a Presidential campaign, with plenty of documentary evidence already available as to his unpleasant, annoying personality!

2. If he were nominated, he would not even be guaranteed to win his home state of New Jersey, which tends Democratic in Presidential elections.

3. He would be unlikely to win any Northeastern or New England state, except maybe New Hampshire.

4. He would not be able to compete in the Pacific Coast states or Hawaii.

5. He would have a rough time carrying Virginia or Florida, which Barack Obama won twice.

6. He would have a difficult time winning the upper Midwest or Illinois, but with some chance of winning Ohio and Iowa.

7. He would be unlikely to win Hispanics and Latinos in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, and would likely lose those states.

8. Christie might win New Hampshire and Ohio, and Iowa, potentially, but that would give him only 28 more electoral votes than Mitt Romney, a total of only 234.

9. Christie’s handling of the Hurricane Sandy situation helped him at that point, but will be forgotten by 2016, and will hurt him among mainstream conservatives, angry that he cooperated with President Obama, and took attention off Mitt Romney.

10.Christie is unacceptable on “social issues’ for his party base, issues such as abortion rights, gun control and acceptance of gay rights, although opposing instituting gay marriage in in New Jersey.

11. Christie has no background or experience in foreign policy, and imagine his personality on the international scene, where with his big mouth, he could cause grief in diplomacy big time! A gruff bully, which Christie is, is not fit to be President of the United States, although it may please the anti foreign tendencies of his party, who think the world is inferior to American “exceptionalism”!

12. This final point is not said in jest or ridicule, or designed as an insult, but to believe that we are going to elect a President as large as William Howard Taft in modern times is to believe in miracles, as Christie is a terrible model for health and physical fitness, and that will be to his detriment, right or wrong, in a Presidential campaign!

So forget about Christie’s own delusions of grandeur, as he is NOT going to be President of the United States in 2017!