Full Version: Rice Confirmed
Rice has been confirmed as Secretary of State. What I wonder is if she will have the same problem with verbal gaffes as her husb…er, boss. I gasped out loud when I heard her say this.
A disaster that has claimed over 250,000 (total updated today) lives should most definitely NOT be referred to as a “wonderful opportunity”.
Aside from being astonishingly insensitive, if the administration had truly looked upon it as an opportunity to mend some fences with the world community, the initial response wouldn’t have been so slow in coming, so they blew the “opportunity” anyway.
This sums up my feelings on the matter much more eloquently than I could have.
The fact that Rice is looking at the relief efforts as a way to make points disgusts me, but I was never a big fan of her anyway. Unfortunately, hers is the face of diplomacy we show the world.
Will Rice’s "style" of management inhibit her effectivity as Secretary of State?
How do you think the world will react to Rice as US top diplomat?
*Referring to her record at Stanford, her inability to admit error, her dictatorial style and sometime abrasive qualities.
QUOTE
Asia's tsunami disaster provided a "wonderful opportunity" for the United States to show compassion with relief efforts that reaped "great dividends" on the diplomatic front, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice said. Channel News Asia
A disaster that has claimed over 250,000 (total updated today) lives should most definitely NOT be referred to as a “wonderful opportunity”.
Aside from being astonishingly insensitive, if the administration had truly looked upon it as an opportunity to mend some fences with the world community, the initial response wouldn’t have been so slow in coming, so they blew the “opportunity” anyway.This sums up my feelings on the matter much more eloquently than I could have.
QUOTE
To suggest that the disastrous tsunamis that followed a massive Indian Ocean earthquake on December 26, 2004 and which have so far claimed the lives of some 170,000 people and made homeless or destitute millions of others, throughout the region, was a "wonderful opportunity" for America is perhaps akin to saying that U.S. forced slavery and more than 200 years of discrimination of scores of African-Americans was a wonderful opportunity for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice to tell an 'inspiring story' at the start of her Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday Official Wire
The fact that Rice is looking at the relief efforts as a way to make points disgusts me, but I was never a big fan of her anyway. Unfortunately, hers is the face of diplomacy we show the world.
Will Rice’s "style" of management inhibit her effectivity as Secretary of State?
How do you think the world will react to Rice as US top diplomat?
*Referring to her record at Stanford, her inability to admit error, her dictatorial style and sometime abrasive qualities.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jan 19 2005, 12:50 PM)
A disaster that has claimed over 250,000 (total updated today) lives should most definitely NOT be referred to as a “wonderful opportunity”. Aside from being astonishingly insensitive, if the administration had truly looked upon it as an opportunity to mend some fences with the world community, the initial response wouldn’t have been so slow in coming, so they blew the “opportunity” anyway.
Aside from being astonishingly insensitive, if the administration had truly looked upon it as an opportunity to mend some fences with the world community, the initial response wouldn’t have been so slow in coming, so they blew the “opportunity” anyway.Sen. Boxer took the same tack. It is, of course, simply semantical word-gaming to position the administration as uncaring. Whether they are or not, has nothing to do with Rice's rather harmless statement.
If I had a dollar for every time I was told to treat a horrible situation as an opportunity, well I'd donate them all to tsunami survivors.
..but of course that doesn't matter to politicians on either side, isn't bluster grand?
Will Rice’s abrasive, "in-your-face style" inhibit her effectivity as Secretary of State?
If the statement about the "opportunity" provided by the tsunami is any example, then I think the premise of the question is flawed.
She is a politician well-versed in the concepts of compromise and positioning. Nothing really "in your face" about it.
How do you think the world will react to Rice as US top diplomat?
They won't,
...unless she makes them. It all depends on her level of audacity, which is needed at this stage in things.
QUOTE(turnea)
If the statement about the "opportunity" provided by the tsunami is any example, then I think the premise of the question is flawed.
No, it is not based on that example only. Am I the only one who sees her style as abrasive? I'll reword the question.
The link to the LA Times article that is embedded in your original link is good. It does a good job describing what her style was like as provost at Stanford. It sounds like her management "style" is almost identical to Bush's. That is probably why they are so close and he trusts her so much.
On the upside, it sounds like she is not afraid to make difficult and unpopular decisions. (I can just imagine the faculty whining about not having a lot of input in her decisions as to where to cut expenses to get the budget under control. University professors can be pretty arrogant and pompous
) It sounds like she was successful at doing the job she was hired to do by getting the University's budget under control. No small feat I am sure and something to be applauded. It sounds like she is "color blind" in her decision making. I am impressed with her decision to eliminate "race" as a factor in tenure decisions, but not in hiring decisions. Diversity is achieved on campus through the hiring-- but once you are on campus your work should be judged solely on its merits.
On the downside, from the article it sounds like she alienated a fair amount of people during her tenure as provost. If you have a goal that you want to accomplish, that is difficult, you can't please everyone that is for sure. I am curious if the article fairly portrays her as dictatorial. I mean, was that the general sense that most people had, or was it a few with sour grapes-- who were the victims of the budget cuts. I would be curious to hear what others have said about her in other capacities. Did she take a dictatorial stance in her current position?
On the upside, it sounds like she is not afraid to make difficult and unpopular decisions. (I can just imagine the faculty whining about not having a lot of input in her decisions as to where to cut expenses to get the budget under control. University professors can be pretty arrogant and pompous
) It sounds like she was successful at doing the job she was hired to do by getting the University's budget under control. No small feat I am sure and something to be applauded. It sounds like she is "color blind" in her decision making. I am impressed with her decision to eliminate "race" as a factor in tenure decisions, but not in hiring decisions. Diversity is achieved on campus through the hiring-- but once you are on campus your work should be judged solely on its merits. On the downside, from the article it sounds like she alienated a fair amount of people during her tenure as provost. If you have a goal that you want to accomplish, that is difficult, you can't please everyone that is for sure. I am curious if the article fairly portrays her as dictatorial. I mean, was that the general sense that most people had, or was it a few with sour grapes-- who were the victims of the budget cuts. I would be curious to hear what others have said about her in other capacities. Did she take a dictatorial stance in her current position?
How do you think the world will react to Rice as US top diplomat?
Condoleezza Rice’s success or failure as Secretary of State will rise or fall on this very point, that is, how she is able to work with world leaders.
I think Ms. Rice goes to bat with the count two strikes and no balls—not an enviable position, to be sure.
Strike one is that she is tied very closely in the minds of not only Americans, but citizens of the world to perhaps the president more hated abroad than any other in U. S. history.
Strike two is that she follows a popular, respected figure, Colin Powell, who is one of those “bigger than life” people who come along about once in a generation. When I was teaching, I noticed that whenever a new principal followed one who was unpopular, change was relatively easy. On the other hand, following one who was popular and trying to bring about change was much more difficult. Condi Rice is following “the giant,” the one spot of Camelot in the Bush administration.
Condoleezza Rice may well become a great Secretary of State, but I’m not holding my breath.
Condoleezza Rice’s success or failure as Secretary of State will rise or fall on this very point, that is, how she is able to work with world leaders.
I think Ms. Rice goes to bat with the count two strikes and no balls—not an enviable position, to be sure.
Strike one is that she is tied very closely in the minds of not only Americans, but citizens of the world to perhaps the president more hated abroad than any other in U. S. history.
Strike two is that she follows a popular, respected figure, Colin Powell, who is one of those “bigger than life” people who come along about once in a generation. When I was teaching, I noticed that whenever a new principal followed one who was unpopular, change was relatively easy. On the other hand, following one who was popular and trying to bring about change was much more difficult. Condi Rice is following “the giant,” the one spot of Camelot in the Bush administration.
Condoleezza Rice may well become a great Secretary of State, but I’m not holding my breath.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.