Are Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice related?
No, they are not related. Although interestingly, Susan Rice attended Stanford where later Condoleeza Rice served as Provost.
Probably not.The first and foremost reason would be that Rice was one of the architects and sellers of the Iraq War—a war founded on lies. We as a country are still paying for this. And a lot of us at the time knew the Iraq War was a mistake, so it’s not like there wasn’t any knowledge at the time that contradicted Bush’s rationale for war. Rice’s support for the war means one of two things to me: a) She has no judgement and therefore shouldn’t be trusted to run this country, or b) She is willing to lie and deceive in order to get what she wants, which would be another reason to not trust her to run this country.The second reason I couldn’t vote for Rice is that any Republican who would have a shot at being nominated to be a candidate for a President would have to hold beliefs that are the antithesis to what I would support to be elected and to be effective in working with the Congress, which at present has members who are just plain crazy.So, no. Unless the party as a whole changes, I couldn’t see myself voting for any Republican. Even if Iraq wasn’t a blemish on her record, Rice would still be problematic for me because of the party she represents and would have to work with.
What would you think of a Donald Trump/Condoleezza Rice 2016 ticket?
Condi is too Bush-y. She was part of the abomination that created the mess in the Middle East when she was Bush's National Security Advisor, and Suckretary of State.
At one time Dr. Rice was a prominent associate of the athletics program at Stanford University. The local newspaper, Mercury News, featured a huge fashion-plate photo of Condi on the front page in a story discussing her role as a talent scout. Condoleezza Rice is Stanford’s ace recruiter(The picture in the paper featured the unmarried Dr. Rice in a very glamorous full-length shot in a slinky dress suggesting there might be something salacious about her recruitment efforts. The current web page version of the article has a more modest photo.)Dr. Rice has taken a lower public profile after information came out about her support for the torture of prisoners of the USA, her negligence in preventing the 9/11 attacks, and her lies under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission.Dr. Rice runs a consulting firm in San Francisco, RiceHadleyGates. Home - Rice Hadley Gates LLCShe also serves on the board of Dropbox, which is very surprising given her associations with unrepentant wiretappers. It appears that in recent years she is reluctant to make public appearances in the SF Bay Area, because they always draw protestors. It’s not clear whether she actually teaches any classes at Stanford, though presumably as a full professor she draws a pretty nice salary. If anyone has access to that information I would appreciate hearing about it.
Frankly, there's not much interest in her being the President. Ms. Rice isn't popular among most African Americans. She doesn't seem to have "clicked" too well with feminists and progressive women. She doesn't have much appeal to LGBT community. She doesn't seem to have too many Latino or Asian supporters. And she's Black, which means that she has limited appeal among conservative Whites. Who exactly would be her constituency? An unmarried sixty year old Black Republican woman isn't anyone's radar as being a potential Presidential candidate. If Ms. Rice were to "surprise" everyone by being candid about her personal life, she might win a few extra votes from certain communities, although that would cost her support from her potential conservative base. If she decided to get married and moved closer to the Black "community" they might be interested in her campaign; however that would also cost her support from other camps. As it stands right now, Condoleeza Rice's future lies in either becoming part of another GOP Administration, sitting on the boards of various companies, working for or starting her own think tank or becoming a paid on-air commentator. If she had any political aspirations, her life choices and her decision to remain in George W. Bush administration until its end have damaged any chance that she may have to make them a reality.
I’m not sure what news sources the OP is paying attention to. Jon Hunstman campaigned to be the 2016 Republican candidate.He was the only one in the clown-car GOP slate who wouldn’t have made for a terrible president, too, so of course he got the lowest number of votes. He was the last respectable Republican to run for president before the GOP became the Trump Party. He is brilliant, and has lived a life of service to the USA. But Republicans have lost their desire to be either respectable or conservative.Colin Powell has been on the list of potential presidential candidates in every race for over 20 years. There was a time when many thought he would be the first Black president. Even I would have voted for him if he’d run against Gore.Sadly, he helped George W Bush trick the Congress into voting for renewed war with Iraq based on lies, which has led to so much misery since. Along with Condoleezza Rice, he lost credibility by being part of the greatest war crime of the 21st century, the Iraq War, which seriously damaged American standing in the world and paved the way for the modern nihilism of the Trump Party. (I guess once you’ve turned America into a nation that argues torture is good, it makes sense to embrace the stance that nothing really matters except sheer power.)
No. Dr. Rice certainly won't run; but if she did, she certainly couldn't win. First, her views on domestic issues do not necessary coincide with the dominant views of the Republican Party. So long as her portfolio was limited to foreign policy, there was no reason to question her on abortion or affirmative action or marriage equality or anything else. Once Dr. Rice starts answering those question, her support in the Republican Party would diminish. Second, Dr. Rice has never ever run for public office. Most Presidential candidates have had the opportunity to make mistakes in speeches, off the cuff remarks, in staffing, etc. in races for the state legislature or a congressional district, when the national media is not watching. As a national candidate, she would be under an intense spotlight. Third, most Americans have come to regard the invasion of Iraq as a terrible mistake. Considering the level of chaos in that part of the world, it could be argued that the US would have been better off with Saddam in charge today rather than ISIS. Dr. Rice was an advocate of that war and, to the best of my knowledge, has never acknowledged that the invasion was a poor policy decision, perhaps the worst since Viet Nam. Fourth, it may be unfair...Hell it IS unfair, but as a Presidential candidate, Dr. Rice would lose any claim to privacy. I wish this wasn't a part of the process, but it is, and she might not want to make her private life a public spectacle.
Dr. Rice has never ever sought public office. There are probably a number of reasons for this. First, the public knows Dr. Rice solely for foreign policy. Would those hoping she will run continue to do so when they learn her views on abortion, affirmative action, tax reform, and gun control? Would her views on these and other domestic issues alienate the conservative constituency that votes in Republican primary elections? Second, Dr. Rice was National Security Adviser when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Fairly or not, her candidacy would open the door to a re-examination of her role in failing to protect the US from the worst attack in American history. She also played a critical role in the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. People may still differ as to whether the invasions were justified. But is anyone seriously going to assert that they were successful? Why would she or the leaders of the Republican Party want to steer the debate away from the Obama Presidency and back towards the Bush Presidency? Third, in her capacity as the National Security Adviser and as Secretary of State, Dr. Rice's personal life and history were both largely ignored by the main stream media. As a Presidential candidate, everything would be open to scrutiny. Someone whose private life has remained private may not, at this stage in her life, be willing to be subject to the intense and often unfair spotlight that a Presidential candidacy would unleash. If Dr. Rice had any Presidential ambitions, we would know by now. She would have endorsed a few candidates, given some partisan speeches, and particpated in some political debates. She's done none of those things. There's no evidence that she wants the top job. Nor is there any suggestion that she would be willing to go through the primary process to win the nomination for that job.