Centerfield

I agree with the assessment. In terms of being able to win and do well once in office, Warner is a strong choice.

Hey, all things equal, as they've been for the most part in the past 2 elections, Warner taking VA and another tepid-red southern state like Florida would end the contest...provided McCain isn't the nominee, in which case, all bets are off because just as Warner can tip a few red swinf states like VA and FL in the blue column, McCain could just as effective in a few weak blue states like PA among others.

But I do like Warner and I think his moderate "third way style" positions would resonate with a majority of Americans. The question is if he COMMUNICATE those positions the way Clinton did and Kerry did not.

I'm hoping that we have a moderate from one of the two parties. Gov. Warner looks good, but so do Senators Hagel, McCain, and Biden. Those three seem to have a leg up on foreign policy experience that Warner doesn't have.

I'm hoping that we have a moderate from one of the two parties. Gov. Warner looks good, but so do Senators Hagel, McCain, and Biden. Those three seem to have a leg up on foreign policy experience that Warner doesn't have.

That's a fair point. If I were to choose a McCain over a Warner for instance, that would be one of the reasons, but I am not completely sure I agree. Let me play devil's advocate.

I wonder if having someone that hasn't been part of the debate since the Iraq invasion, a fresh set of eyes if you will, wouldn't be a bad thing. The way I look at foreign policy, is that President's make decisions based on the advise around them, for the most part. I am not trying to down play experience, and I happen to have great respect for both McCain and Biden, but the key to good foreign policy is having sound judgement, being capable of managing information, and surrounding yourself with the right people. Bush, IMO, had the wrong people in the wrong place. If Colin Powell had been making military decisions and Condoleeza Rice were the Secretary of State in the first term, arguably we would not be where we are today. Yes, I am speculating.

Warner might be good at foreign policy because IMO he is a policy wonk first and a partisan second. Furthermore, just beause you haven't had experience governing foreign policy doesn't mean you don't have the knowledge to do so. I believe what has been lacking in the White House whether or not you love or hate Bush, is good management. Whether or not you agree with the Iraq War there has been, by the President's own admission, major mistakes that have been made at the executive level. Experience in foreign policy is important, but so is management.

What organizations have McCain and Biden been in charge of? What tasks have they delegated to government agencies? When have they ever as managers selected advisors to give then sound advise? When have they as an Executive ever had to make major decisions in a timely manner? It is easy to go on Meet the Press after the fact and point out what went wrong. IMO, McCain and Biden have been better than anyone else at that, but what would they have done as President at the time the decision was made? Where have they shown that they have that capability? I say this with the knowledge of knowing that I would sleep well if either McCain or Biden were Commander in Chief, and yes, I know of McCain's military exerience. I am not convinced, nor have I ever been, that good military leadership neccesarily parallels with good management. Don't get me wrong, good military leaders can be good managers, I think Wesley Clark is a competent manager for instance, but I am not sure if it is a given. And by some on this site's own admission, McCain is at times, a hot head. Will that hurt his ability to manage foreign policy?

I don't know the answer to all of these questions. I really am asking.

I'm hoping you're right. I was a Clark supporter, but I'm warming up to Warner.

Mathew,

The way I look at foreign policy, is that President's make decisions based on the advise around them, for the most part. . . . the key to good foreign policy is having sound judgement, being capable of managing information, and surrounding yourself with the right people.

Ironically, that was pretty much George W. Bush's foreign policy and national security mantra leading into the 2000 elections-- "Okay, I don't have a lot of foreign policy experience, but when you vote for me you're voting for all the old wise men from my father's Administration..." A lot of voters supported Bush Junior because they reckoned upon his father's advisers-- the Powells, Skowcrofts, and Bakers-- as likely to provide precisely the direction that you're talking about.

When he lectured to our Student Conference on US Affairs in November 1999, Henry Kissinger actually refuted this approach. According to Kissinger, the problem with this method is that all Presidents are going to be surrounded by lots of brilliant men and women, many of whom are going to be offering conflicting opinions on a recurring basis-- if the President lacks the experience to discern the complex issues and make a knowledgeable decision, he's less likely to make the best moves. HAK cited (among others) the classic battles between George Shultz and Cap Weinberger in the Reagan Administration, Cyrus Vance versus Zbig Brzezinski under the Carter Administration, and his own showdowns with James Schlesinger during the Ford Administration. It was actually an implicit criticism of then-Governor George W. Bush at the time, but because of the nature of the audience, it just wasn't reported elsewhere (and that may have been why Kissinger was willing to speak so candidly).

I'm not necessarily saying that Governor Warner would be weak on foreign policy and national security-- I can't even begin to presume that without knowing what his specific ideas and proposals would be, and (perhaps more importantly) whom he would intend to install in the positions of influence, and I don't know any of that. I'm merely pointing out that Kissinger (who is, of course, an authority on foreign policy making, albeit not an irreproachable one) disagrees with the "surrounded by smart advisors" argument.

Again, my personal opinion would be that his foreign policy and national security ideas and proposals should be judged based on the merits of those ideas and proposals, and not because he was once a General, an Ambassador, or sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which only tells me what someone has done in tangentially-related field, and not what they would do as our nation's Head of State).

Of course, I fully acknowledge that most Americans would base their opinions upon his background experience, and not on the merits of his ideas-- but I can't do anything about that...

Not so fast, folks. Warner is a viable candidate but lacks any of the charisma of Bill Clinton, nor has he been tested in the rough and tumble world of Rove-style politics. Wes Clark has much broader credentials, th kind of personality and message that grows on you, and is a true Southerner. Oh, and have you noticed him take to Hannity and all the other right wing dregs on Fox...always polite but nails them every time!

You are wise to respect Mike Huckabee's chances at the Republican nomination. Kudos to you.
BSR

Not sure I understand the comment re Shrum and Trippi -- I like Mark Warner quite a bit and think he would make a great President. What I have said is that the special interest politics of the Democratic Party make it very difficult for someone like him to win the Primary -- something I think speaks to a weakness within the party process -- not a weakness of Mark Warner.

Joe, if that's really you, thanks for stopping by and reading our little blog here.

Although I didn't right the original comment, I would imagine John was referring to the general impression that your candidates (especially Howard Dean) play up those special interest politics during the primary camapign, trying to rally the base, rather than expand it.

In short, the politics of "revolution" (televised or not) is not the politics of centrism. Revolutions magnify differences and demand that people choose sides. The rhetoric of revolution is by nature divisive. Most of us on this blog would agree, I think, that there is nothing so bad in our country that a revolution is necessary to change things. Rather, we want the parties to listen to each other, to stop demonizing each other, to stop acting as if all who disagree with the party platform are wrong or evil.

Just my two cents. Again, thanks for stopping by.

To make a start at answering Mattew's question, McCain was a Naval officer. Which means that, even though he lost a lot of years in a North Vietnamese prison, he has more management experience than most Senators.

In fact, if he plays up that military management experience, he might be one of the extremely rare Senators who manage to get elected President -- but the smart money will still bet on a Governor or ex-Governor over a Senator.

wj,

Again I don't think military leadership neccesarily parrallels with executive leadership.

Bobby,

Yeah, that is what Bush said, but that isn't what he did. Had he listened to Brent Scrowcroft, Colin Powell, and James Baker, we would not be in Iraq or at least not in the manner that we are now. I think he put Conoleeza Rice in a position she wasn't prepared for and let the Cheney side of the debate dominate the discussion, something his father didn't do. I think the difference between Bush I and II, is that the latter was an incompetent manager.

JP,

I simply disagree... I think Wes Clark is a smart and capable human being, but comes off as a bug eyed nut job who really, really wants to be President. On the other hand, although Warner is more of a wonk than Clinton, he has charisma it is just a different kind. I have seen him in person and on television many times and think he has a very warm personality and comes off as some one who truly cares. I guess it is a matter of personal opinion.

Joe,

If that is really you... If the Democrats run a campaign like Howard Dean's they will not only lose, but lose badly. Howard was for all intents and purposes a centrist, fiscally responsible Governor, who came off as a an out of control, anti-war, whacko.

If the Democrats nominate Warren, I would be inclined to vote for him. His experience walking the moderate line in VA is more important than foreign policy experience, IMO, for the next few years. McCain might also get my vote, but I have reservations concerning his temper and respect for free speech.

Wesley Clark reminds me of Douglas McArthur. They both were better managers and politicians than generals. Clark has made Bush-like military miscalculations, yet they never seem to stick, just at McArthur largely escaped the consequences of his massive military blunders. I was so dumfounded by some of Clark's decisions in Yugoslavia that I still, years later, can't bring myself to trust his judgement enough to vote for him.

A Warner/Napelitano ticket would be nice. Or a Warner/Richardson. Or a Richardson/Warner. Being a former ambassador the UN should effectively squash the no foreign experience argument. Also, Western governors seem to be popular not just in their state, but through the entire region.

Putting either Richardson or Napelitano on the ticket would put New Mexico or Arizona, or both, in play. Added to a Warner ticket, I could see Florida flipping colors in 2008.

Mathew,

No, I think I didn't explain it well enough. The literature surrounding Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor isn't that she encouraged "bad" decisions, but rather that she saw her role as something of a mediator between the opposing points of view (ironically, the same approach that Colin Powell took when he was Reagan's NSA)-- allowing Rumsfeld and Powell, Wolfowitz and Armitage, equal opportunity to influence the President in national security meetings. Ironically, that is perhaps the position the President himself saw himself playing, but lacked (at least in the early days) the grasp of foreign affairs to perform it himself. It isn't just about being a "competent" manager-- one has to have the knowledge to discern the difference between competing opinions, otherwise the manager has no idea whom to support on any given issue. Unless a President surrounds herself with advocates of only one foreign policy school (a dangerous proposition, in its own right), the President will invariably find herself in a position where she will be forced to choose between competing arguments.

And that was Kissinger's point-- that a President without that knowledge and experience will have problems figuring out which side to support when the "warring factions" start arguing, and will likely become a victim of the more persuasive group (which, it must be said, is not necessarily the "best" one).

Now it's true that the President could have surrounded himself with only the Realists that you cite-- Scowkroft, Powell, and Baker-- and then he would not have had to worry about competing ideas and alternative approaches since they would all be crowing the same line... I suppose that's one way to make your decisions easier. But abolishing intellectual diversity within the White House is no prescription for success (and critics of the War claim that the neocons' dominance in the first term is what caused those problems-- and the President might implicitly agree: today it's hard to find a neocon in any position of prominence, VP Cheney notwithstanding). If that's a candidate's approach-- "I'll just appoint all my advisors from the same school so that making decisions will be easier"-- then he absolutely isn't fit to be President.

A President needs to be able to navigate his own approach through foreign affairs. Just because Governor Warner has not served in such a capacity does not mean he doesn't have that ability, but I think it would behoove him to start making speeches and lectures before the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for Strategic and International Studies to demonstrate his knowledge if he expects to neutralize his opponents on the issue.

Mathew,
You are correct that military command experience does not necessarily indicate executive leadership ability. On the other hand, to get elected President, what is required in not executive leadership ability. For better or worse, what is required to get elected is public perception of executive ability. Which, I suspect, military command would give far more than Senatorial experience.

WJ really hits the heart of it:

On the other hand, to get elected President, what is required in not executive leadership ability. For better or worse, what is required to get elected is public perception of executive ability.

The same adage applies to national security and foreign policy credentials in Presidential candidates. A Governor could indeed be far more qualified to conduct foreign and defense policy than, say, a Senator, General, or Diplomat-- but what is required to get elected is that the public perceive this to be so... and that puts the Governor in a far worse position in post-9/11 world. I know conventional wisdom says that Governors fare better than Senators in Presidential elections, but I wonder if that rule will still hold post-9/11, or if the new emphasis on security has changed the dynamic and we just don't realize it yet...

Bobby,

I don't think we are disagreeing... I am not saying foreign policy knowldege is unimportant, I am saying foreign policy knowledge isn't enough and will fail without good management. I would further argue that Bush even after he had substantial foreign policy experience has failed in many aways because he hasn't adequately managed his administration. Again, what have McCain and Biden managed, ever? And again, I am not saying that either of them are incapable of doing so, but it is a fair question. Also, I would point out that Ronald Reagan had zilch in the way of foreign policy experience and accomplished more with the Soviet Union than those before him who had tons of it. Why? Because he listened to the right people, Secretary of State George Shultz and NSA Colin Powell, IMO.

No, I think I didn't explain it well enough. The literature surrounding Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor isn't that she encouraged "bad" decisions, but rather that she saw her role as something of a mediator between the opposing points of view (ironically, the same approach that Colin Powell took when he was Reagan's NSA)-- allowing Rumsfeld and Powell, Wolfowitz and Armitage, equal opportunity to influence the President in national security meetings.

Again, I think she failed and was not prepared for the role. Condi Rice was a foreign policy academic with no real experience making decisions regarding military action. In her current role she has improved because she has the knowledge and personal attributes to be an effective diplomat. It is appropriate that she speaks to the international community on behalf of Americans and she is well equipped to do so, not mediate arguments and advise President's in matters of war.

You are correct that military command experience does not necessarily indicate executive leadership ability. On the other hand, to get elected President, what is required in not executive leadership ability. For better or worse, what is required to get elected is public perception of executive ability. Which, I suspect, military command would give far more than Senatorial experience...

The same adage applies to national security and foreign policy credentials in Presidential candidates. A Governor could indeed be far more qualified to conduct foreign and defense policy than, say, a Senator, General, or Diplomat-- but what is required to get elected is that the public perceive this to be so... and that puts the Governor in a far worse position in post-9/11 world. I know conventional wisdom says that Governors fare better than Senators in Presidential elections, but I wonder if that rule will still hold post-9/11, or if the new emphasis on security has changed the dynamic and we just don't realize it yet...

Then Bob Dole should have beaten the crap out of Bill Clinton and John Kerry should have beaten Bush, right? I think the only Democrat that will look like an executive when put side by side with McCain, is Warner.

Mathew,

I'm also not so sure we're arguing, but I'm pretty sure we're not in agreement, either. You're advocating that Governor Warner's superior management experience could translate to successful foreign policy as President; I'm not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that managerial experience alone will fail if the person does not have the knowledge base from which to make informed decisions. I've also gone to great lengths to point out that just because Gov. Warner has not served in a foreign policy or national security capacity, does not mean that he lacks the ability to do it. But along those lines...

I would further argue that Bush even after he had substantial foreign policy experience has failed in many aways because he hasn't adequately managed his administration. Again, what have McCain and Biden managed, ever?

I would have to say that just because McCain and Biden don't have Warner's gubernatorial experience doesn't mean they would be poorer managers. In fact, they might even be great ones. Again, it depends on the style and issues they would advocate, and the people they would associate themselves with, and in the absence of such information, I'm not going to hazard who would be better. I know that's a harder position than what people want to do-- which is to look at someone's background and make instantaneous judgements about their capabilities-- but that has never seemed to me to be an accurate assessment of how well someone will perform (whether it is baseball general managers or brigade operations officers).

Also, I would point out that Ronald Reagan had zilch in the way of foreign policy experience and accomplished more with the Soviet Union than those before him who had tons of it. Why? Because he listened to the right people, Secretary of State George Shultz and NSA Colin Powell, IMO.

Well, first of all, I would point out that Ronald Reagan went to great pains to establish himself as a foreign policy figure-- he toured around the country making speeches, and challenged his own Party's incumbent in the primaries by running on a platform of military strength and power projection. He made himself into the pro-defense, pro-security candidate by stressing those issues. My earlier suggestion was that Warner should be doing something similar if he wants to insulate himself against perceived weakness on foreign policy issues. And I still think he should if he wants the American public to take him seriously.

But I must point out that it would have been impossible for Reagan to have taken both Schultz and Powell's advice-- George Schultz and Colin Powell were actually on opposing sides during their years in the Reagan White House. They rarely disagreed on the issues, as both men will readily admit. Powell was actually a member of Weinberger's faction (in fact, the Powell Doctrine is really the Powell Corollary to the Weinberger doctrine).

Again, I think she failed and was not prepared for the role. Condi Rice was a foreign policy academic with no real experience making decisions regarding military action.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think Rice was more than qualified to handle military issues-- she served in the National Security Council during the first Bush Administration, had been studying defense policy exclusively during her time as provost at Stanford, and had advised then-Gov. Bush on defense issues during the campaign. She had far more defense policy experience than her immediate predeccesors, Sandy Berger or Tony Lake, or Robert McFarlane, Zbigniew Brzezinski-- or Henry Kissinger, for that matter! I would submit that if she didn't have the experience on military issues to be NSA, than very few of our NSA's meet that litmus test. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

Then Bob Dole should have beaten the crap out of Bill Clinton and John Kerry should have beaten Bush, right?

Well, I did say "post-9/11," didn't I? My whole point had to do with the fact that security issues have dominated the agenda since 9/11 and that the old wisdom-- Governors win the White House-- may no longer hold in this new scenario, didn't it? Last I checked, the Clintom/Dole election was pre-9/11, and the Bush/Kerry election occurred after Bush had four years of national security experience as President of the United States... So, I think that answers your questions.

However, if you're wondering, I don't think that Governor George W. Bush would have gotten elected in 2000, if 9/11 had occurred in 1999 instead of 2001. My opinion is that there would have been too many questions about his foreign policy credentials. But that's just my opinion. And for that matter, I don't think Governor Bill Clinton would have gottene elected, either-- President Clinton, yes, but Governor Clinton, no way.

Typo: "They rarely disagreed on the issues" should read "They rarely agreed on the issues" (with italics added for emphasis). Obviously, the typo changes the whole point of my paragraph, which is that Colin Powell, Brent Scowkroft, Frank Carlucci operated out of a different faction than George Schultz.

In Schultz's hardly-read book (I think I was one of a dozen people not in the Schultz family to read it), Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, the former Secretary of State actually presents himself as often alone against the majority of the hard liner Cabinet, especially during the second term. Ironically, there's little dispute that he was the most influential of Reagan's advisors on foreign policy.

I must wholeheartedly agree with your hopes that Warner wins the Democratic nomination. For now, I'm not sure I could point to any reason for optimism on that point, but we have almost two years for that to settle. One thing though, on the running mate-issue, I would like to see some experience balancing. While prior foreign policy-experience might not be necessary for a president, it would be nice to have at least a running mate with such experience, and to make a statement about one's foreign policy-preferences through such a pick.

One could argue that it had little to do with Clinton's policies and more to do with economic progress well outside of his control, but under the administration of a pro-choice, moderate Democrat the rate of abortions plummeted and under Bush they have increased. That is a fact.

Factcheck.org carried an article on the topic almost a year ago.

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.