I am not writing this to scare you guys, but to make you well aware of who the 3rd party nominee of the religious right might well be. I have been quietly following the movements of this candidate, and his effect on the race for 2008 could be much more serious than a run by Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, or even Mike Huckabee. Why you ask? Well, because he’s a Zell Miller Democrat (but a more experienced politician).
Let me formally introduce you to former Democratic U.S. Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn.
Sam Nunn has publicly expressed that he might well run for President next year, and talk is growing that it will be him, not Bloomberg, that will run on the Unity ticket. This could be disasterous for the Republican party.
After listening to all the pros and cons of the Iraq War last week, it really made me stop and ponder how crucial this next presidential election will be. And how important it will be to have a consensus builder in the White House; someone who knows about diplomacy and military affairs. We need someone who is seasoned and who won’t need on-the-job training.
If you look at the current field, none of the declared candidates really cover each of these attributes.
And then there is Sam Nunn, the former 24-year Democratic senator from Georgia who heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He is Sen. Richard Lugar’s partner in one of the most visionary and critical pieces of legislative and diplomatic statesmanship of our times: the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that has turned 7,000 Soviet nuclear warheads into the very energy powering American homes today.
Nunn proposed the program after he literally had a front row seat to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. He was attending a conference in Hungary when Soviet Chairman Gorbachev was taken captive. Friends urged him to “Come to Russia” (note that they didn’t say “Soviet Union”). He talked to military people outside of the Russian White House where Boris Yeltsin had made his stand. He listened to the dissolution debate in the Duma. And he realized the Soviet nukes, weaponized pathogens and chemicals were poised to spill out across an array of new borders.
Lugar says of Nunn, “As a leading voice in U.S. defense policy, he has attained a level of credibility and respect that few Americans in our history have ever matched.”
Nunn was approached by Hamilton Jordan, a former aide to President Carter, and Doug Bailey as they pondered a virtual Internet convention in early summer 2008 for what would be the Unity 2008 ticket. I had a fascinating dinner with Nunn in a Yekaterinburg restaurant while traveling with he and Sen. Lugar in August. It was a once-in-a-career opportunity to ponder the dysfunctionalities of the current presidential nominating process, the coming changes in commercial and cable TV, and the impact of the Internet and YouTube, which with one video (Sen. George Allen’s “macaca”) shifted the balance of power in the U.S. Senate in 2006.
“I’m going to look very carefully at what both parties are doing,” Nunn told me during a flight the next day. “I’m hoping that we’ll have some meaningful debate. It doesn’t have to be agreement. But it has to be meaningful debate and discussion on the key issues facing America.”
Those issues include “security right up front.” Of the Iraq War, Nunn calls it “a fiasco which we’ve basically mishandled in all directions. We’ll get over it because we’re a strong country and we’re indispensable in the sense that we’re the world leader. It’s going to take at least 10 years to rebuild U.S. credibility.”
Sam Nunn served in the U. S. Senate from 1972 to 1996 representing the state of Georgia. Unlike many democrats, he was just as popular with Republicans on the hill as well as with voters. He could quite possibly put an end to the GOP’s hold on the south in 2008.
Think the fact he is a democrat will turn him off to the religious right? Think again.
Brief Senate Resume:
Nunn was chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He also served on the Intelligence and Small Business Committees. His legislative achievements include the landmark Department of Defense Reorganization Act, drafted with the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which provides assistance to Russia and the former Soviet republics for securing and destroying their excess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To date, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has deactivated more than 5,900 nuclear warheads. He was supposedly a top choice to be Secretary of Defense or State in 1992 and 1996 and in a prospective Gore cabinet in 2000.
He will not announce his intentions until after the parties have selected their nominees.
Update: Just found this article from the conservative Human Events Magazine, written by a conservative Georgia pundit:
If an independent candidacy develops, there would be time to mount a campaign and the money to run it. If that candidacy is Bloomberg/Nunn, it will take more from the independents and democrats. In the months to come, the numbers will be run and rerun as to the viability of an independent candidacy, but right now, Republicans have not done enough to win back the majority in Congress and maybe they probably don’t deserve it. The immigration issue has formed new alliances because border security first is not a partisan issue. Movement by the administration late last week in the direction of an overwhelming number of Americans on border security and workplace enforcement is the right move, but won’t be enough unless they mean to maintain the enforcement. That leaves the bad taste that people have for one party having all the power still in the mouths of the voters. That tends to support the election of a Republican for President or opens the door for an independent candidate. Sam Nunn knows how to walk through open doors and make the most of it. He’s done that all his life. If there is an independent candidate for President with the money to run will he take away from Republicans or Democrats? The answer to that question will determine who wins.
The brilliance of this strategy is that it doesn’t split the Republican party by itself. They can leave with no hard feelings A lot of conservatives are going to be attracted to this guy anyway, so why the point of creating a party if one is already available? A return of a reformed Dixiecrat Party?
October 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Honestly, I think it’s more likely that Republican voters will be turned off by the (D) that has been next to his name for so many years and Democratic voters will be turned off by his right-wing issue positions. If Sam Nunn runs, he’ll pick up about 1% of the vote.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
JS, huh? Who said he will have (D) next to his name? There actually have been quite a few third parties in the past few elections. You ever heard of Nadar of Green Party (third Party)? What of Ross Perot? The party mentioned here is called Unity Party, so Nunn will have (U) next to his name, if he does proceed.
Tommy, so this is the third party candidate you think Religious Right leaders could go for? I can see why.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sorry, but does he support pulling out of Iraq early, or does he just think it has been “mishandled”? As for fiscal policy, where does he stand on taxes?
–
Anyway, you say he is a Democrat, well, I think that makes it likely that he would draw a lot of support from Democrats as well as Republicans (remember, there is a strong anti-hillary contingent in the DNC that doesn’t want a Republican, but doesn’t want Hillary either). Who he would take more from, I don’t know.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
This is exactly the candidate that the Rudyites should fear. While none of the top 3 would run on their own if they didn’t get the nomination, I could envision some “formerly” maverick Republican Senator taking the second spot on a Nunn ticket. That would just about guarantee another Clinton White House.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
This is an interesting question…
If Bloomberg is atop the Unity ticket, then I still say he will hurt the Dems more than the GOP. I can’t see how the Veep selection of a 3rd party ticket (Nunn) will have a significant impact.
Nunn at the top of the ticket has the potential to hurt the GOP in the South though, where most folks still call themselves Democrats even though they vote Republican.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
ACT (#3), yeah, the Blue Dog Democrats (those Democrats who are fiscal-conservative). He may drawn the social conservatives on Republican side (if Rudy is nominated). That’s quite a number. Not enough to win, but enough to hurt either side, one way or other. Umm, if he is truly popular as this article claims, he might take Georgia out of the picture. Well, perhaps most of the southern states if we have two candidates from northeast.
Irish Right, ohhhh, a Republican on Nunn ticket, like Newt, perhaps?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Zell Miller left office with a 90% approval rating. No, he doesn’t support pulling the military out of Iraq. He says Bush’s plan over there have been disasterous, but he wouldn’t pull out of Iraq.
ACT,
He’d kill us in the electoral college. With a NE ticket, he’d pull enough southern support from us to kill us in Georgia. The only way to hold him off would be by selecting Johnny Isackson or Sonny Perdue.
Having a D next to his name sure didn’t hurt Bredeson or Miller in the south.
He’s a fiscal conservative. The only possible blemish is that he supported the Brady Bill, but so did Rudy and Mitt.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I’m not convinced this guy would hurt the GOP that much. I can see two possible situations:
1) His Democratic past, but Conservative policies, alienate both sides, and he gets a small, insignificant portion of the electorate. Remember, those who try to please everybody end up plasing nobody.
2) His non-republicanism but Conservative policies are able to draw a large numebr of independent voters, as well as anti-hillary Democrats, and Republicans unhappy with our nominee (most likely and most serious if that person is Rudy). He either wins, or hurts both sides equally.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
ACT,
Don’t be sure of that. If the GOP nominates Rudy or Romney, the South will want “A good ol’ boy”. No one understands it. It’s just a Southern thing.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“With a NE ticket, he’d pull enough southern support from us to kill us in Georgia. The only way to hold him off would be by selecting Johnny Isackson or Sonny Perdue.”
From what I have read, the two people most likely to become the VP nominee are Huckabee (if Rudy gets the nomination), or Jim DeMint (if Romney wins). Both are evangelical, Southern Conservatives, and both would balance the ticket out nicely. Personally, I like DeMint, since I think he is a rising star, but I could like with Huck as VP.
Also, don’t underestimate the power of a campaign that would paint Nunn as a spolier to Republican policies – by painting him as a man unable to get enough votes to win, but enough to give Hillary the White House. Needless to say, that argument only works if he is not more Conservative than the Republican nominee.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
ACT,
Would Republicans vote for Zell Miller if he was a nominee. You forget just how unpopular the GOP is right now, even with it’s own base.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
SGS #2: I never said Sam Nunn would have a (D) next to his name if he ran as the Unity candidate. Re-read my post. I said the fact that a (D) “had been next to his name for so many years” (past-tense) would turn off Republicans.
My perspective is more attune to #8 ACT’s 1) option.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“Don’t be sure of that. If the GOP nominates Rudy or Romney, the South will want “A good ol’ boyâ€. No one understands it. It’s just a Southern thing.”
Oh its perfectly understandable, they want a candidate they can trust, and they feel most able to trust one of their own. However, see my above post as to how we counter that.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“You forget just how unpopular the GOP is right now, even with it’s own base.”
…Because it strayed from Conservative policies. The GOP running next year is going to be very different from the one that ran last year or four years ago. Notice that there is no Bush-administration candidate, and that five Senate seats will be open – all of which were held by Republicans. Possibly six, but only if the Alaska guy retires (can think of his name right now).
October 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I think for some reason, all else being equal, Southerners will vote for other Southerners more than people from other parts of the country would stay with people from the same region.
I also think it depends on who our guy is. If somehow Fred defies all odds and captures the nomination, there won’t be any need for Nunn.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
ACT,
His record was consevative in the 1980’s and 1990s. Adam nailed it on the head. I’m backing whoever the R is on the ticket, but those who haven’t committed to the party…
October 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Adam also hit another point. Nunn and Fred are close friends.
However, the Vegas odds right now have FDT at 3:1. Just behind Rudy and tied with Romney. So that ain’t really defying the odds.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I would take Nunn over Rudy (unless he’s flipped on abortion of course).
In fact, no matter who wins, I think Nunn should receive close consideration for Sec. of State or Defense.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Okay, here’s the slogan:
BETWEEN HILLARY AND RUDY, I’LL TAKE “NUNN!!!”
or…
HILLARY, RUDY, OR NUNN OF THE ABOVE?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Kavon in #5 is right again.
And… Nunn has ruled out a VP run.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“but those who haven’t committed to the party…”
Are likely more comitted to the ideals of the party, rather than the big red “(R)” – and I’m one of them. The best way to combat a Conservative run by a third party? Nominate a candidate who is Conservative himself, and then porty Nunn as a candidate who will only hurt Republican causes by taking votes from the GOP and allowing a Democrat to win.
In fact, a run by a Conservative with belief’s similar to Nunn’s (such as Romney or Thompson) might convince him not to run in the first place.
–
Now, I have a Constitutional Question for anyone who can answer it. Lets assume that Nunn runs, and takes a couple Southern states in the process. Lets also assume that the GOP picks up Michigan and Wisconsin, and that the Democrats do not win Florida or Ohio. That, I believe, gives us a situation with no candidate having a majority of electoral votes. That means that it goes to the House – simple enough, but which session votes on the winner, the one in power at the time of the election (Democratic), or the one elected in 2008 (possibly Republican or closely split enough to allow a Republican to win)?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“That means that it goes to the House – simple enough, but which session votes on the winner, the one in power at the time of the election (Democratic), or the one elected in 2008 (possibly Republican or closely split enough to allow a Republican to win)?
”
That IS a good question. I am not sure, but I do know it’s one vote per state and the state legislatures decide. Right now the Democrats have the edge by (I believe it is) five states.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
sorry – that’s if it is a tie in the House. i got ahead of myself.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I’m not 100%, but I’m pretty sure the new House determines the Prez in case of a deadlock in the electoral college, as they are sworn in before the President.
The advantage for Republicans is that it is one vote per state, and not a straight vote of 435 members.
Another trivia question, what happens if a state is deadlocked? Say, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats?
October 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
My guess would be multiple rounds of voting.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
JS (#12), thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding. My apologies.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
The new Congress assembles on the 3rd of January. The electoral votes are opened and counted on the 6th. Congress has until the 20th (swearing-in day) to pick before contingencies come into play (see below).
The House picks the President from the top 3 electoral vote getters, by state delegation. The requirement is a majority of ALL states, which I suppose means that if a state can’t figure out a vote, they just don’t cast one – need 26 affirmatives.
The Senate picks the VP from the top two contenders, individually (not by state) . I assume the sitting (pre-election) VP gets to break a tie, since his term doesn’t end until the 20th.
If a selection for Pres isn’t made by the 20th, the VP-elect serves as President until the President is selected. If there isn’t a veep-elect (not sure how that would happen if the old veep can break the tie, but the Constitution mentions it), Congress can by law provide for that, i.e., we start with the Speaker of the House and go on. If there’s a President, but not a Veep, then the Pres can appoint his Veep and get approval (a chance to change his mind to break whatever is causing deadlock in the Senate).
October 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
A closer reading it doesn’t actually mention a veep not getting selected, just failing to qualify (i.e., was underage when elected).
October 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
[...] Tommy Oliver thinks he sees the third party threat that could present a serious challenge to both parties: I am not writing this to scare you guys, but to make you well aware of who the 3rd party nominee of the religious right might well be. I have been quietly following the movements of this candidate, and his effect on the race for 2008 could be much more serious than a run by Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, or even Mike Huckabee. [...]
October 18th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Nunn voted against the first Iraq war. I don’t think he has done much for people to think he has particularly good judgment, and he has never run anything before. Plus, he hasn’t been in the political arena for a long time, and his political chops are probably very, very rusty. I don’t think he’d get anywhere if he ran, maybe a couple of percentage points here and there, and not enough to turn any state either way.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“a couple of percentage points here and there, and not enough to turn any state either way”
That’s been enough the last two elections.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Marksal,
That’s his one stain. On the other hand, yes he has done enough to have prove he has good judgement. You’re also forgetting that the south can be very isolated. Clinton split the south.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Nunn’s definitely popular enough in his home state to possibly pull an upset in GA and TN.
Also, by the looks of the General Election polls, we’re going to have a female president who has no executive experience either.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Been doing some more researching, the dude was hard core socon in his day.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
MWS (#17) slogan HILLARY, RUDY, OR NUNN OF THE ABOVE
That would pull in the socons. Nunn, the candidate of the heavens above… That could be viewd as blasphemous, which may not help things.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
JayPe,
That is the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I think I could vote for this guy.