Campaign Headlines October 17, 2012: Condoleezza Rice Joins Paul Ryan on the Campaign Trail at Baldwin Wallace University in Ohio

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Condoleezza Rice Joins Paul Ryan on the Campaign Trail

Source: ABC News Radio, 10-17-12

STAN HONDA/AFP/GettyImages

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined Paul Ryan on the campaign trail Wednesday, marking the first time she’s hit the trail for the Romney ticket since she fired up the crowd with a speech at the Republican National Convention in August.

“It doesn’t matter where you came from, it matters where you are going” was her message in this battleground state of Ohio, inferring that the president, whom she never mentioned by name, is not someone who’s offering the right direction for the country.

“As important as it is for us to pay our bills and not take on debt that we can’t afford, as important as it is to get people back to work, as important as it is to give people a sense of hope again, I want to make another argument to you,” Rice said, speaking to a crowd of over 1,000 at Baldwin Wallace University….READ MORE

Advertisements

Campaign Buzz August 29, 2012: 2012 Republican National Convention Day 2 Roundup

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: 2012 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT THE SECOND NIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

Source: Mitt Romney Press, 8-29-12

“Rock-Star Welcomes” …. “Absolutely Sensational” … “Wows The Crowd” … “Deafening Applause”

NBC News: “Ryan, Former Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice And New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez Received Rock-Star Welcomes…” “Ryan, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez received rock-star welcomes from delegates here in Tampa in speeches extolling nominee-in-waiting Mitt Romney and the virtues of leadership.” (NBC News, 8/30/12)

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Dealt With The Most Important Issues Of The Day…” BLITZER: “What I really liked about the Paul Ryan speech tonight is at least it dealt with the most important issues of the day, the substantive economic issues, health care, Medicare. He didn’t skirt those issues.”  (CNN, 8/30/12)

CBS’s Jan Crawford: “A Speech That Appealed To The Brain And The Heart.” CRAWFORD: “What was most interesting about it was this is a speech – and it was a speech that appealed to the brain and the heart. And it had one message to President Obama: bring it on.” (CBS, 8/30/12)

Fox News’ Steve Doocy: “Putting The American Dream Into Perspective…” DOOCY: And Condoleezza Rice putting the American dream into perspective by sharing her own story growing up in Birmingham.” (Fox, 8/30/12)

National Journal’s Major Garrett: “The Reaction On The Floor Was Absolutely Sensational. … A Breakout Star….” GARRETT: “Another big star last night was Susana Martinez. The reaction on the floor was absolutely sensational. Not too many people have seen her before or heard her before – the new Governor of New Mexico. I think she was a breakout star last night.” (CBS, 8/30/12)

Time’s Mark Halperin: “Ryan’s Speech, In Tone, Style, And Substance, Reflects Exactly Why Mitt Romney Picked Him.” “Ryan’s speech, in tone, style, and substance, reflects exactly why Mitt Romney picked him. … Until Wednesday night, Democrats did not seem too worried about what was coming out of Tampa; now, there is manifest concern.” (Time, 8/30/12)

Politico: “Paul Ryan Brought Delegates To Their Feet Here Over And Over Again…” “Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan brought delegates to their feet here over and over again Wednesday night, telling the Republican National Convention in a dozen different ways: Obama isn’t working.” (Politico, 8/29/12)

The Wall Street Journal: “The GOP’s Sharpest Cases Yet Against A Second Term For President Barack Obama…” “Rep. Paul Ryan took the national political stage Wednesday as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate, giving a televised speech that laid out one of the GOP’s sharpest cases yet against a second term for President Barack Obama, and for Republicans as the party of small government.” (The Wall Street Journal, 8/30/12)

The Hill: “Electrified The Republican Party…” “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday night electrified the Republican Party with a speech that combined lacerating attacks on President Obama with homespun values and a tribute to GOP candidate Mitt Romney.” (The Hill, 8/29/12)

The Washington Post: “Condoleeza Rice Brings Down The House” (The Washington Post, 8/29/12)

Politico: “Condoleezza Rice Wows The Crowd” (Politico, 8/29/12)

Univision’s Jordan Fabian: “Martinez Hit It Out Of The Park.” “Martinez hit it out of the park. She gets the tone & can truly empathize and relate with Latino community…” (Twitter.com, 8/29/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Neil King: “Gov. Martinez Makes The Case For Hispanics Switching Over To The Republican Party.” (Twitter.com, 8/29/12)

Tampa Bay Times: “Deafening Applause…” “Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan was greeted with deafening applause and hailed as the face of a new GOP on Wednesday night as he tore into President Barack Obama’s policies, casting him as a failure on the economy who is unwilling to make dramatic change.” (Tampa Bay Times, 8/30/12)

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York: “Ryan Got It All Done.” “Ryan’s 36-minute address did everything he needed to do: offer a devastating indictment of President Obama’s economic record, with a few memorable barbs about the president’s legendary self-importance; offer enough personal background so that viewers feel they know a little about Ryan; and most of all, convince voters that he and Mitt Romney will devote all their energy to jobs, the economy, and debt. Ryan got it all done.” (The Washington Examiner, 8/30/12)

The New York Times: “Brought The Crowd To Its Feet Several Times…” “But two hours later, Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, brought the crowd to its feet several times in a rare foray into electoral politics, even reprising Republican accusations that Mr. Obama has failed to project American strength, saying, ‘We cannot be reluctant to lead — and one cannot lead from behind.’” (The New York Times, 8/30/12)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “A Self-Styled Happy Warrior, Earnest And Eager…” “What they saw was a self-styled happy warrior, earnest and eager to persuade the voting public that the answer to the nation’s economic woes is a Romney-Ryan partnership of freedom-loving, can-do problem-solvers.” (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/29/12)

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “A Feisty Tim Pawlenty…” “In his most high-profile speech before a nationwide audience, a feisty Tim Pawlenty told thousands of cheering Republicans on Wednesday they were celebrating at ‘Barack Obama’s retirement party.’” (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 8/29/12)

The Wall Street Journal: “A Defense Of American Exceptionalism…” “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) offered a defense of American exceptionalism with the first speech Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention.” (The Wall Street Journal, 8/29/12)

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “In Listening To Martinez, She Struck Us As The Female Equivalent Of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – Very Comfortable In Her Own Skin.” (The Washington Post, 8/29/12)

Full Text Campaign Buzz August 29, 2012: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Condoleezza Rice RNC speech (text, video)

Source: Politico, 8-29-12

Remarks by Condoleezza Rice at the Republican National Convention as prepared for delivery.

Good evening.  Distinguished delegates, fellow Republicans, fellow Americans…

We gather here at a time of significance and challenge.   This young century has been a difficult one.  I will never forget the bright September day, standing at my desk in the White House, when my young assistant said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center – and then a second one – and a third, the Pentagon.  And then the news of a fourth, driven into the ground by brave citizens that died so that many others would live.  From that day on our sense of vulnerability and our understanding of security would be altered forever.

Then in 2008 the global financial and economic crisis stunned us and still reverberates as unemployment, economic uncertainty and failed policies cast a pall over the American recovery so desperately needed at home and abroad.

And we have seen once again that the desire for freedom is universal – as men and women in the Middle East demand it.  Yet, the promise of the Arab Spring is engulfed in uncertainty; internal strife and hostile neighbors are challenging the fragile democracy in Iraq; dictators in Iran and Syria butcher their own people and threaten the security of the region; China and Russia prevent a response; and all wonder,  “Where does America stand?”

Indeed that is the question of the moment- “Where does America stand?”  When our friends and our foes, alike, do not know the answer to that question – clearly and unambiguously — the world is a chaotic and dangerous place.  The U.S. has since the end of World War II had an answer – we stand for free peoples and free markets, we are willing to support and defend them – we will sustain a balance of power that favors freedom.

To be sure, the burdens of leadership have been heavy.  I, like you, know the sacrifices that Americans have made – yes including the ultimate sacrifice of many of our bravest.  Yet our armed forces remain the sure foundation of liberty.  We are fortunate to have men and women who volunteer – they volunteer to defend us on the front lines of freedom.  And we owe them our eternal gratitude.

I know too that it has not always been easy – though it has been rewarding – to speak up for those who would otherwise be without a voice – the religious dissident in China; the democracy advocate in Venezuela; the political prisoner in Iran.

It has been hard to muster the resources to support fledgling democracies– or to help the world’s most desperate— the AIDs orphan in Uganda, the refugee fleeing Zimbabwe, the young woman who has been trafficked into the sex trade in Southeast Asia; the world’s poorest in Haiti.   Yet this assistance – together with the compassionate works of private charities – people of conscience and people of faith— has shown the soul of our country.

And I know too that there is weariness – a sense that we have carried these burdens long enough.  But if we are not inspired to lead again, one of two things will happen – no one will lead and that will foster chaos —- or others who do not share our values will fill the vacuum.  My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice.  We cannot be reluctant to lead – and one cannot lead from behind.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand this reality — that our leadership abroad and our well being at home are inextricably linked.   They know what needs to be done.

Our friends and allies must be able to trust us. From Israel to Poland to the Philippines to Colombia and across the world — they must know that we are reliable and consistent and determined.  And our adversaries must have no reason to doubt our resolve — because peace really does come through strength.  Our military capability and technological advantage will be safe in Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s hands.

We must work for an open global economy and pursue free and fair trade – to grow our exports and our influence abroad.  In the last years, the United States has ratified three trade agreements, all negotiated in the Bush Administration.  If you are concerned about China’s rise – consider this fact – China has signed 15 Free Trade Agreements and is negotiating 20 more.  Sadly we are abandoning the playing field of free trade – and it will come back to haunt us.

We must not allow the chance to attain energy independence to slip from our grasp.  We have a great gift of oil and gas reserves here in North America that must be and can be developed while protecting our environment.  And we have the ingenuity in the private sector to tap alternative sources of energy.

And most importantly, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild the foundation of American strength – our economy – stimulating private sector led growth and small business entrepreneurship.  When the world looks at us today they see an American government that cannot live within its means.  They see a government that continues to borrow money, mortgaging the future of generations to come.  The world knows that when a nation loses control of its finances, it eventually loses control of its destiny.  That is not the America that has inspired others to follow our lead.

After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history.  That is the true basis of “American Exceptionalism.”   The essence of America – that which really unites us — is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea — and what an idea it is:  That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things.  That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going.

Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement.  We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well.  We have not been envious of one another and jealous of each other’s success. Ours has been a belief in opportunity and a constant battle – long and hard — to extend the benefits of the American dream to all – without regard to circumstances of birth.

But the American ideal is indeed endangered today.   There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.

More than at any other time in history –the ability to mobilize the creativity and ambition of human beings forms the foundation of greatness.  We have always done that better than any country in the world.  People have come here from all over because they believed in our creed – of opportunity and limitless horizons.   They have come from the world’s most impoverished nations to make five dollars not fifty cents– and they have come from the world’s advanced societies – as engineers and scientists — to help fuel the knowledge based revolution in the Silicon Valley of California; the research triangle of North Carolina; in Austin, Texas; along Route 128 in Massachusetts – and across our country.

We must continue to welcome the world’s most ambitious people to be a part of us.  In that way we stay perpetually young and optimistic and determined.  We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.

We have been successful too because Americans have known that one’s status at birth was not a permanent station in life.  You might not be able to control your circumstances but you could control your response to your circumstances.  And your greatest ally in doing so was a quality education.

Let me ask you, though, today, when I can look at your zip code and can tell whether you are going to get a good education – can I really say that it doesn’t matter where you came from – it matters where you are going.  The crisis in K-12 education is a grave threat to who we are.

My mom was a teacher – I have the greatest respect for the profession – we need great teachers – not poor or mediocre ones.  We need to have high standards for our students – self-esteem comes from achievement not from lax standards and false praise.  And we need to give parents greater choice – particularly poor parents whose kids – most often minorities — are trapped in failing neighborhood schools.  This is the civil rights struggle of our day.

If we do anything less, we will condemn generations to joblessness, hopelessness and dependence on the government dole.  To do anything less is to endanger our global economic competitiveness.  To do anything less is to tear apart the fabric of who we are and cement a turn toward grievance and entitlement.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild us at home and inspire us to lead abroad.  They will provide an answer to the question, “Where does America stand?”

The challenge is real and these are tough times.  But America has met and overcome difficult circumstances before.  Whenever you find yourself doubting us – just think of all the times that we have made the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect.

America’s victorious revolutionary founding – against the greatest military power of the time; a Civil War – hundreds of thousands dead in a brutal conflict – but emerging a stronger union; a second founding – as impatient patriots fought to overcome the birth defect of slavery and the scourge of segregation; a long struggle against communism – that ended with the death of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Europe, whole free and at peace; the will to make difficult decisions, heart-wrenching choices in the aftermath of 9/11 that secured us and prevented the follow-on attacks that seemed preordained at the time.

And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America – her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State.

Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect.  But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the experience and the integrity and the vision to lead us – they know who we are, what we want to be and what we offer the world.

That is why this is a moment – an election – of consequence.  Because it just has to be – that the most compassionate and freest country on the face of the earth – will continue to be the most powerful!

May God Bless You – and May God continue to bless this extraordinary, exceptional country – the United States of America.

Q & A: What Did Condi Rice’s Nomination in the 21st Century Have in Common with Henry Clay’s in the 19th?

HISTORY ARTICLES

HISTORY, NEWS & POLITICS

HNN, 2-14-05

What Did Condi Rice’s Nomination in the 21st Century Have in Common with Henry Clay’s in the 19th?

By Bonnie Goodman

Ms. Goodman is a graduate student at Concordia University and an HNN intern.

On January 26, 2005 history was made when the Senate confirmed Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state by a vote of 85 to 13. No black woman had ever held the post. But the vote also made history in another, less fortunate way. As the Associated Press widely reported, more senators voted against Rice’s nomination than against any other secretary of state since 1825, when Henry Clay was up for the position and was confirmed by a vote of 27-14.

Even though Rice may have had the largest number of “no” votes for confirmation since Clay, in proportion to the total number of senators, she did better than he had. She received 13 “no” votes or 13 percent of the total; Clay received 14 “no” votes or 34 percent. Still the opposition they faced in the Senate shared remarkable similarities.

The fierce opposition in the Senate toward Henry Clay’s nomination as was a direct fallout from the 1824 presidential campaign and the “Corrupt Bargain” allegedly made between John Quincy Adams and Clay. In 1824, there were four candidates running for president; President Monroe’s secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, Senator Andrew Jackson, Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, and the incumbent Speaker of the House, Henry Clay. All the candidates were members of the Republican-Democratic Party, and voting loyalties were sectional. In the election Jackson won the popular vote, and had a plurality of the electoral votes but not the necessary majority. The precise breakdown showed that Jackson had 99 Electoral College votes and polled 153,544 popular votes (43.1 percent); Adams had 84 and 108,740 (30.5 percent); Crawford had 41 and 46,618 (13.1 percent), and Clay had 37 votes and 47,136 (13.2 percent). (John C. Calhoun had a clear majority for the vice presidency.)

Because no one enjoyed a majority of electoral votes, the election was thrown into the House of Representative. As required under the Constitution, the House choose from the top three candidates, eliminating Clay, who’d come in fourth in electoral votes. The states that were up for grabs included Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio, which Clay had won, and the closely divided states of Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and New Jersey. Jackson seemed likely to win since he only needed the votes of two states in addition to those he had carried in the election. Adams, in contrast, needed six of the seven available states in addition to the six New England states he already had plus New York. In the end Adams won; according to Jackson and his supporters, Adams achieved victory by entering into a Corrupt Bargain with Clay, promising him the post of secretary of state in exchange for his support. Clay as Speaker of the House had the influence over congressional members to decide the outcome of the vote.

The position of secretary of state was at the time considered a stepping stone to the presidency; the last four secretaries of states in the country’s short history had risen to the presidency. The agreement was favorable to both parties; Adams would immediately get the presidency, and Clay would be the next in line. Clay a “typical Western gambler” gambled with his position as Speaker, and publicly supported Adams. Clay later wrote that Adams “was the best choice that I could practically make.” Clay delivered four Western states to Adams, including the three states he had won in the election: Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri. Adams also allegedly made an agreement with Daniel Webster to gain the vote of Maryland in exchange for the post of minister to Great Britain, but the appointment was never tendered. Adams was elected president by a vote of 13 to 11 states on the first ballot. (States voting for president in the House of Representatives vote as a group.)

Andrew Jackson vehemently opposed Clay, and the deal made with Adams that had cost him the election. It was a hatred that would resonate with Jackson until his death in 1845. Jackson swore he would do everything he could to thwart Clay’s presidential ambitions.

Jackson teamed up with John C. Calhoun, and William Crawford to create a Southern-Western axis in opposition to Clay. Clay nonetheless succeeded in lining up broad support for his nomination as secretary of state, but the “violent” friends of his enemies–Calhoun, Crawford and Jackson–remained opposed to his appointment. Clay persisted and his supporters argued that the West with a population of 3 million deserved representation, as they had not yet had a president or even a high level cabinet official. On February 17 Clay accepted President-Elect Adams’s offer of the position of secretary of state. The nomination increased Jackson’s fury. Fulminating, he raged: “So you see the Judas of the West has closed the contract and will receive thirty pieces of silver. His end will be the same. Was there ever such a bare faced corruption in any other country before?”

After Adams’s inauguration on March 4, 1825 the president sent in three appointments for the Senate’s approval; at the top of the list was Clay’s nomination. Adams originally wanted to keep the Monroe Administration’s cabinet except for the admission of Clay, but Jackson’s opposition sabotaged Adams’s plan. When Clay’s nomination came up in the Senate, he believed that there would be little opposition to his appointment, with a maximum of 3 or 4 votes against him. He was shocked when 14 out of the 41 senators voted against him, thanks to Jackson’s opposition.

John Branch of North Carolina, voting against Clay, became the only senator to speak out in defense of his vote. He stated he opposed the nomination because of the “suspicion” of alleged wrong-doing. Jackson and two of his close partisans headed the campaign against Clay along with other Jackson followers who would go on to form the new Democratic Party. As Adams noted in his diary, “This was the first act of opposition from the stump which is to be carried on against the Administration under the banners of General Jackson.” The only Jackson follower that voted for Clay was Martin Van Buren, the leader in the Congress. On March 6 Clay resigned from his position in Congress and the next day signed his commission and was sworn in as secretary of state on March 8, 1825, amid a controversy that would haunt the one-term administration.

In the two elections–1824 and 2004–the losing presidential candidates in the Senate led the opposition to the appointment of a new secretary of state. In 1825 it was Andrew Jackson; this year it was John Kerry. In both cases the secretary of state faced questions that raised doubts about their character.

Comments (2)

%d bloggers like this: