Condi Rice is different from all of her predecessors, not only because she lacks their skills, honesty, and competence, but because she’s not afraid to use her position for political purposes.
In the weeks leading up to the Nov. 2 election, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has traveled across the country making speeches in key battleground states, including Oregon, Washington, North Carolina and Ohio. In the next five days, she also plans speeches in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.
The frequency and location of her speeches differ sharply from those before this election year — and appear to break with the long-standing precedent that the national security adviser try to avoid overt involvement in the presidential campaign. Her predecessors generally restricted themselves to an occasional speech, often in Washington, but counting next week’s speeches, Rice will have made nine outside Washington since Labor Day.
Rice frequently supplements her speeches with interviews with local media, generating positive coverage — including a Page One news story in Portland’s largest newspaper. Although she does not mention Democratic challenger John F. Kerry and avoids answering overtly political questions, the target of her speeches is not lost on local audiences. The Seattle Times, reporting on a Sept. 7 speech to the University of Washington, said, “Rice sounded at times like a candidate” as she received “rousing ovations” in defending the administration’s handling of the war on terrorism.
At a certain level, none of this is surprising. The Bush White House places politics above all else, so it’s only natural to see the president’s NSA on the campaign trail in a way her predecessors never considered.
But here’s my bottom-line question: shouldn’t Rice have better things to do?
Here we are in the midst of a war. Moreover, we’ve heard countless warnings about terrorists threatening to disrupt our elections in less than two weeks. Where’s the White House national security advisor? On the campaign trail, in swing states, giving political speeches. It’s hardly the kind of sign that boosts confidence in the administration.
The other side may argue that Rice has always given speeches around the country and so these campaign-season appearances are nothing new. The facts show otherwise.
Rice has given two-thirds of her 68 speeches in the Washington, D.C., area, and she gave no speeches in battleground states before last May, according to records supplied by the White House. In previous years, she delivered most of her out-of-town speeches in such locations as New York, Chicago, Texas and California, her home state. In fact, in September and October of 2003, 2002 and 2001, Rice gave two or fewer speeches outside Washington, the records show.
So it’s a coincidence that Rice, after ignoring battleground states for three-and-a-half years, all of a sudden hits nearly all of them just weeks before voters head to the polls? I don’t think so.