Is Condoleeza Rice the Right Veep Choice for Romney?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Someone asked me today who I think ought to be the choice for Vice Presidential running-mate with Mitt Romney. Four years ago somebody asked me that question, and I replied, "Sarah Palin, but I don't think McCain is smart enough to pick her."

This time the presidential candidate is not as moderate as McCain, but Romney isn't exactly a constitutional conservative, either.  In a perfect world, and as with my answer four years ago I must add that I don't think Romney is bright enough to choose these people, it would be in Mitt's best interest, and America's best interest, if Romney chose Florida Congressman Allen West to run with him. At the top of my list is also Rand Paul, the U.S. Senator out of Kentucky, and son of Texas libertarian republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Allen West as a military man has first hand national security experience, and is a fearless conservative. Rand Paul understands the Constitution in ways that no other political person out there has demonstrated - even more so than his father, Ron Paul. In fact, I believe that the attacks by Romney were light on Ron Paul specifically because he was contemplating making Rand Paul his running mate. However, in the case of both of these people, the lack of political experience is a major concern.

The best veep choice with executive experience is Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty (2003-2011). He ran for President in this election cycle and bowed out quickly, primarily due to a lack of funds. From a conservative point of view, except for a couple hiccups, he is pretty dang conservative. However, he exhibited how little he understands the Constitution in the very first presidential debate in Iowa where he indicated he felt the federal government should keep the States from having government run health care programs like Romney-care. As bad of an idea it may be, from a constitutional point of view, the States are constitutionally allowed to have such programs, and the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to stop them.

Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible because they are not natural born citizens (parents were not citizens at the time of their birth). Liebermann is, though not a liberal nut-cake, is not even close to being conservative, or constitutional, enough. Santorum would be interesting, but as much as I like him may turn out to be a liability especially after how Romney and Santorum went after each other in the primary campaign. New Jersey's governor Chris Christie is a fun one to watch, and is turning that State around, but is also quite moderate on a number of issues.  Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has the conservative credentials we are looking for, but his charisma is not the best. Still, I would accept him as veep. Paul Ryan would also be a fantastic pick, but he has indicated that he will not accept such an offer, primarily for the sake of his family.

Then, there's Condi Rice, Secretary of State under George W. Bush. Many folks see her as a plus. A woman, and African-American, that could bring those groups to the voting polls in favor of Romney, should he choose her as his running mate. She is fairly conservative on some issues, and not so much on others.

According to Politico, these are Condoleeza's Stances (and my commentary on them in italics):

Abortion:

“I don’t like the government involved in these really hard moral decisions. While I don’t think the country is ready for legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade, certainly I cannot imagine why one would be in favor of partial birth abortion. I also can’t imagine why one would take these decisions out of the hands of the family.” — Dec. 20, 2010, Christianity Today

In this response she played both sides. However, she misses the whole point that when it comes to federal involvement in abortion, it is not about morality as much as it is about legalities. Abortion is not an issue the federal government has the authority to entertain, nor is it prohibited to the States, therefore it is a State issue (10th Amendment), making Roe v. Wade unconstitutional not only because the federal courts had no authority to rule on a State issue, but that they had no authority to overturn a State law either.
Gun control:

“The way I come out of my own personal experience, in which in Birmingham, Ala., my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against White Knight Riders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there, armed. And so I’m very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment.” — May 11, 2005, “Larry King Live”

Good answer, but her answer failed to recognize that the federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape, or form. Any regulatory actions in regards to firearms are only authorized to the States.

Gay marriage:

“I don’t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country. I happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s tradition, and I believe that that’s the right answer. But perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union.” — Dec. 20, 2010, Christianity Today

One must ask if marriage is a right in the first place. If it is a right, then does that mean a law should be made that I be guaranteed to be married in my lifetime? Secondly, as with abortion, the question over gay marriage, or any other kind of marriage, would be a State issue. Personally, I think that the government, any government, has no business getting involved in marriage in the first place. It is a church matter. However, civil unions is something that can be performed locally, and it would need to remain a local issue. The federal government has no business even having the slightest involvement in the institution of marriage. Therefore, the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Immigration:

“We need a comprehensive immigration reform. We need to make certain that we are able to secure our borders. State Department plays the role in that, in working with our neighbors and also working with the states. Everybody knows that we need people to respect our laws, and that needs to be said first. But it is also the case that we are a country of immigrants.” – May 27, 2008, CNBC

Correct, except she must understand that we are a country of legal immigrants. Also, once the illegal aliens cross the State line, and even upon reaching that State line, the State has full authority to respond to the intrusion.

Keystone XL Pipeline:

“There is absolutely no reason not to do it. There is no environmental issue. We should do it.” — April 24, 2012, Developing Unconventials Conference

No argument here. She might have wanted to add that it would be in our best interest to also lift the ridiculous moratoriums imposed by Obama on the Gulf of Mexico and in ANWR (Alaska).

Religion:

‘“Let me be clear. I’m evangelical and I’m proud of it. I consider an evangelical to be someone who professes faith in a way that draws others to it.” — Dec. 20, 2010, Christianity Today

Check.

Education:

“I believe very strongly in adequately resourcing our educational system. I would never want to under-resource it. But we have to spend the money wisely. And you are not going to get Americans to think about additional funding, even for the K-12 system, when we have the kinds of results that we do in the school districts that spend the most money.” — March 20, 2012, PBS

Federal intrusion on education systems is unconstitutional. If she really believed in helping our educational system, Condi would be in favor of eliminating the Department of Education.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary