What do YOU think of Condoleezza Rice?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by italiansupernova, Feb 17, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    BinkWile, please sharpen your comprehension skills.

    I never accused those with opposing GOP viewpoints a racists. I accused those who oppose blacks for governmental positions as racists and, not even that.

    I made it clear most Democrats who oppose Rice are not racists, per se. I called them "benign racisits." These are people who are not racist in the traditional sense of hating blacks. They oppose blacks not because they're black but because they are blacks put forward for confirmation to office by a Republican.

    And the more the GOP does in the area of civil rights and equal opportunity, the more the GOP whittles away at their base which scares the dickens out of them!

    They simply don't want the GOP to accomplish something progressive in the area of civil rights--supposedly their area.
     
  2. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    About Dr. Condi Rice:

    quote
    posted by Carl_Reginstein
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ......... This type exists in many powerful positions in academe - the man-hating uber-woman who tramples all in her path in her rise to power, who forgets what makes women so special (kindness, gentleness, sensuality), and who so quickly turn on their fellow professional women who are one or two notches below her in their own rise up the careerist ladder.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wow! This appears to me to be too much of stretch, too much hyperbole, for comfort.

    Carl, do you know anything specifically damning about her other than what all of us (and you, of course) see, read, and hear in newspapers, magazines and on radio/TV?

    These are very strong and disparaging assessments, and quite possibly a bit unfair. Without knowing her in person (and as a person), I find it difficult for anyone to possess the evidence to back up such harsh views about her.

    I personally think that Dr. Rice is a bright person, a "careerist" possibly, maybe even a brilliant academician, even though media reports about her make her come across sometimes as too mechanistic and imperial.

    She appears to be super loyal to her boss (no question about that - maybe that is why she got the job in the first place!), and sometimes I wonder if she really can say what is on her mind as opposed to what her boss wants to hear.

    I am speculating, of course, since I have no evidence that this is, indeed, the kind of person she is.

    She surely will go down in history as the National Security Advisor on whose watch the worst terrorist act ever, against the USA, occured. Then again, she will share this same historical footnote with her boss, President George W. Bush and others in high positions in the pre-9/11 US Government.

    Currently, as the US Secretary of State, I am beginning to sense a bit more warmth and personality in her travels, meetings and speeches. I am beginning to sense in her, a yearning to work for peace, freedom, and security in troubled areas of the world. Maybe.

    More speculation on my part, of course .....

    Thanks.
     
  3. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    Did you vote for Al Sharpton in the last election? If you didn't you're a racist. You see how odd your position is? What if there are two qualified black people vying for the same post? Then I guess no matter who you root for you're still a racist!

    You can call Democrats who voted against Rice racists all you want, but doing so on the basis you just quoted... it just can't be taken seriously whatsoever.
    And now you're changing your argument so that it actually sounds sane. I totally agree with the statement above. Any Democrat who toes the party line will oppose a black, white, green or purple person put forward for confirmation to office by a Republican. The same goes in reverse.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    No, but I voted for a black for U.S. Senator and I have voted for blacks for local, state, and national office since I was 18 years old!

    No change at all. Read my FIRST post on this thread!

    What is it with the lack of comprehension on an educational forum?
     
  5. intro2life

    intro2life New Member

    What I think of Condi Rice

    Brilliant human being! I don't really know that I'm "qualified" to judge whether she's qualified for her current position. I do [as a side note] know a great many people without prior direct related experience in their [now] current field, that are just amazingly good at their job. Often outside experience can bring unexpected insights and perspective to a position, that those who have more related experience would not nessessarily have. There are just no guarantees, just as in most things.


    In an obscure but related example:

    When we become parents it's unlikely we have any training or related experience. Yet, many turn out to be marvelous parents. While still other's are not. In observing friends who I've known since youth, I've discovered that many of the ones I felt would make excellent fathers and mothers...well I now feel I was wrong. However, a few of the ones that did turn out to be devoted parents to their children, I would not have believed it likely when we were all much younger.


    In regard to Condi's race, sex or precieved traits, I don't think any of that is relevant to her position. She appears (to me) to be someone who is very driven as well as talented, and has earned her place in this world. I think she should be given a chance to let her future accomplishments speak for themselves, and will suspend my own critique until she has developed a track-record at her current post.

    In regard to a fellow posters rather harsh view of Dr. Rice, and his personal beliefs about many career oriented women who reach high positions of power. I find that many people [male and female] who are obsessively driven, have a tendency to give off the appearance of being detached, dominant and cold. In my own personal opinion and observations, it is simply how some people learn to cope with the difficulties of their respective chosen careers. In certain athletic sports [I believe] this adopted persona is refered to as someone's "game-face". Many people simply put a detached game-face on when dealing with critical issues in a publicly scrutinized forum. I think my fellow poster is right only in the aspect that it is often more common with women than men.

    My former spouse climbed the corporate ladder starting as an administrative assistant, eventually [many year later] ascending to a moderately-high executive position in one of the world's largest finance companies. In her personal life she was very open, seemed somewhat meek and submissive yet jovial and personable. By contrast, at work she seemed driven, dominant, detached, controlling and reserved. Occasionally at company events I would hear [from those who didn't know she was my wife] negative depictions of her character and motivations. In truth, she highly-respected most of her co-workers [including many with negative perceptions of her], and simply loved and was therefore highly-dedicated to her job. It was simply crucial to her that she continually improve herself professionally, not so much by climbing in position, but more so by just doing and being what she felt was the best she could. The rise in position was a benifical by-product of her absolute dedication, not really her goal. However, as she was entrusted with more responsability and ultimately power, she also started believing that she needed to be more professionally reserved to maintain respect and authority. Early on in her rise in management she had too often experienced many co-workers who viewed her as their "buddy" and consequently took unprofessional liberties (being regularly late, not following procedure, etc) figuring that they could get away with it.

    My point is not that adopting such an outward manner is nessessary as a person ascends the ladder in their career. Rather, it is a coping strategy adopted by many when they do. If Dr. Rice is such a person, it does not nessessarily indicate that she (Dr. Rice) has any hidden agenda to opress or limit the advancement of those of the same gender, nor does it nessessarily display any lack of humanity or caring. I also don't think that (as some posters have implied) each of our own views of her achievements and ability, nor her fitness to have gained such a position of power can be divided down political party lines.

    ...Anyway, it was not my intent to offend anyone. I just think our discussion board has a tendecy to drift off-topic and diverge too far into the realm of speculation and opinion. I enjoy reading those opinions. It keeps the board interesting. But.....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2005
  6. The reason I wrote all that crap was because the question was specifically worded "what do YOU think of Condoleeza Rice" not "what do YOU know about Condoleeza Rice". I said what I thought, and that's all it is..... my thoughts about her. I'm not about to do a massive research project to back up everything that I THINK, much less KNOW, about her.....

    Therefore, the question itself begged for opinion, not fact.

    I've never been shy to give my opinion about these cold-blooded types, male or female....
     
  7. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Oh Carl, don't be shy...how do you really feel? :D
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    decimon:

    Yes. The responsibility DOES lie with the Presidents themselves.
     
  9. GUNSMOKE

    GUNSMOKE New Member

    OH COME ON NOW CARL...........

    .....Don't get ur panties all in a wad!!! :D

    You see, it's just that after all these years, you Dems have finally convinced us Republicans that this Affirmative Action thing has its positive ramifications on society as a whole, and why, we may just use it next on the SUPREME COURT!!!! :D

    Yep,

    that IS the ticket!

    :D :D :D
     
  10. Veteran101

    Veteran101 New Member

    Hmm

    Bush's Mistress maybe?:D
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Hmm

    If so I bet he doesn't drive her off a bridge and let her die!
     
  12. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    It is definitely too early to give an opinion. She just started her job, and the previous one didn’t allow for much public scrutiny (at least, from The Netherlands). Nevertheless from here she seems to be a hardliner, one of those hawks at Bush’s cabinet, tough, confident. I think she could probably be a good friend and a formidable enemy. She said recently, regarding those problems with Old Europe, "forget Russia, ignore Germany and punish France". Bush also made a point on how much he wanted to mend relationships in Europe. Then the most significant point her naming conveys is that Bush doesn’t consider restoring friendship here in Europe a priority (we´ll see tomorrow as he is scheduled to come to Europe). I suspect his foreign policy is built around pacifying the Middle East. And she may be the right person to complete the job (?).


    On a side note, I am really surprised to read the criticism by Nosborne and Decimon to Pres. Wilson, who I considered to be one of the best. His idealism has been studied for generations all over the world. His ideas were revolutionary and were anathema to more current terms like realpolitik, Clausewitz, Machiavelli, national interests, or balance of powers. I personally think Roosevelt was a terrible one. Theodore, of course. :D



    Cordial greetings
     
  13. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Look closer, please, at Wilson's racial policies, fomenting of anti-German/German-American hostilities and such niceties as the Palmer Raids.
     
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    EEww. Now that's an image I could have done without!
     
  15. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    She's currently our Secretary of State. She was the National Security Advisor for the last four years.

    I don't think that the National Security Advisor really needs to know how to kill people 243 different ways. There are specialists in the military to take care of that.

    The National Security Advisor position is more of a big-picture position. While a background in the military or in one of the alphabet agencies would obviously be helpful, the primary emphasis is international politics, Rice's forte. The emphasis is less with technical capabilities than with the intentions of the various leaders wielding the capabilities.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2005
  16. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Hi JLV, I think that your posts are very good and I enjoy reading them

    Yeah, I get the same impression. Colin Powell was definitely a moderating voice in the cabinet. I don't sense that Rice will be that.

    I don't doubt that she said that at some point, but I'd be VERY interested in knowing the context. Taken alone, I suspect that it creates a misleading impression.

    For one thing, her earlier experience was as a Russian specialist. She has a great personal interest in Russia and is a fluent Russian speaker. So I can't imagine her flatly saying 'forget Russia'. But she might well have said it regarding a particular issue or something.

    Again, I'd like to know the context of her remarks, before saying what they reveal about her attitudes towards Europe.

    There is a political faction that wants to lead Europe collectively towards a competitive if not flatly anti-American stance. Washington is well aware of that fact.

    So while I think that Washington is very interested in maintaining friendships in Europe, it might not be in a big rush to do so on terms dictated in Paris.

    It's certainly of more danger to the world than Europe. Europe has some challenges in the Balkans and places like that, but I think that Europeans can probably address that stuff better than we can.

    I think that illustrates a major difference between Europe and the United States.

    You guys got wrecked by World War II. After the war Europeans wanted nothing more than to normalize their lives and to retore a sense of personal security. So Europeans taught a whole new generation that nationalism was an evil atavism. They gave up pursuing world influence that they could no longer afford, and immediately discovered that the attempt had just been another evil. Europe turnd its eyes inward and conentrated on promoting welfare state policies at home.

    The United States emerged from the war triumphant. The war never really reached our homeland. Our economy was booming. Our military stood astride the planet. And most importantly, Americans had the confident feeling that great things could be accomplished by taking action, by standing up for principle.

    Europe entered into a quietist period, while the US barged onto the world stage and took over the role that was being abdicated by the European powers.

    We see the echoes of that today. Bush acts. Maybe not the wisest actions, but he's not afraid to wield American power and believes that using it can make the world a better place.

    Ironically, the European power that often seems to cheerlead the criticism that Americans ignore consensus is France, probably the most American of Europeans. The French still care about the glory of France. They sill consider themselves the historical heart of Europe, with the world's most sophisticated civilization. They still try to act where they can, in places like the Ivory Coast. They insist on remaining an independent nuclear power. And they want to take the helm of a united Europe in hopes of challenging American world leadership.

    Americans can understand that and even respect it. It's what Americans would do in similar circumstances. But that doesn't make the French any easier to live with.
     
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Interesting comment considering an Associated Press article in my local paper, Europeans fret Bush's next move has this quote from a Parisian businessman,

     
  18. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member


    Thanks Tom, my views exactly.

    I think we need to get back to our true Libertarian roots. We need to defend only OUR shores and not countries who don't give a damn about us.

    I can go on and on, but the bottom line both the Republicans and Democrats have failed us miserably.
     
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    That works only in a government by and for the people. Both parties have given us government for large commercial interests by paid shills and of the voiceless mass (us). Large business interests need raw materials, cheap labor and markets. Hence, like every other powerful country in history, we engage in imperialistic activities.
     
  20. gmail

    gmail member

    About Condi

    She is brighter than me (perhaps) and than 99.9% of the members of the Forum. (for sure)
     

Share This Page