The Candidates
1. General James Jones- Former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Earlier this year, there was breathless speculation about the possibility of Jones appearing on an Obama ticket. The justification for this trial balloon was, as near as I can tell, Jones’ criticism of the troop levels in Afghanistan. He wanted more. So did Obama. McCain’s position was somewhat unclear at the time. Now it’s considerably more clear (he wants more troops as well). In the interim, the Jones balloon was popped when he endorsed McCain. This wasn’t terribly surprising, to anyone who’d been following these things.
Captain John McCain was Liason Officer Jones’ first boss. Since then, the breathless speculation has entirely disappeared. This seems puzzling. Jones was attractive to Obama for a number of reasons; one he had credibility with both Republicans and Democrats, having been appointed to positions by both Republicans and Democrats. Two, he actually has some (Actblog, you’ll love this) business experience. He’s President of 21st Century Energy (whatever that is) and sits on the Board of Directors at Chevron and Boeing. These aren’t world-beating Romney-like credentials, but they’re nothing to sneeze at. He also makes sense because Obama was supposedly considering him a few months ago- it’d be extremely difficult to sell him as an ideologue, and as a native Missourian, he’ll be attractive to heartland voters. Why haven’t we hear anything about McCain/Jones again?
2. Admiral William Fallon- Petraeus’s predecessor (at CENTCOM), he supposedly resigned because of his opposition to Bush’s hardline stance on Iran. But, about a week later, Bush took a decidedly non-hardline stance on Iran (sending an envoy to Tehran to no avail). So I suspect that we’re not getting the entire story about Fallon’s resignation. But, if fiction, it’s a useful fiction. John McCain has thus far managed to batter Obama on foreign policy questions. He’s made the naive Obama seem….well, naive. But, soon enough Obama will have a partner in crime, and probably one like Biden or Bayh, both of whom are considerably more credible on foreign policy. And it’s simply a fact that the left has been ACHING to go after John McCain as a warmonger.
Thus far this has failed, because when Obama attacks McCain as a warmonger, it highlights the fact that Obama’s well…a little dovish, and a little clueless, and out of his element. But, eventually they’ll hit hard on “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and “100 years of war” and other vaguely bellicose statements McCain has made. And they’ll say, if not in so many words, “do you want a possibly senile, possibly mildly insane (from the torture) warmonger running the country?” Add someone like Fallon to the ticket, and that charge disappears. Neo-cons wouldn’t love the pick, but we’ve considered, for expediency sake, sacrificing every other aspect of our ideological purity. And it’s not as though not wanting to go to war with Iran (for strategic reasons) automatically makes you a dove. Here’s what Fallon said, when asked what he’d do if war looked inevitable: “Get serious,” the admiral says. “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
McCain needs to add economic expeirence to the ticket - not another general or foreign policy heavyweight.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The Act Cast
Saturday, August 23rd, 9 PM EDT
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/act-cast
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
act-blog,
I noted that Jones, in particular, actually does have some economic experience. I even mentioned you (anticipating this objection). Do you even read these posts, or do you just look at the headline then spit out the “who are you kidding, Mac needs Mitt” propaganda?
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
act-blog,
Also, do you realize what it is generals and admirals on this level actually DO? Do you realize that General Petraeus had as much control over the Iraq economy as most Governor’s or Presidents? Do you realize that they create economic redevelopment plans, that absolutely dwarf, in terms of complexity, anything a business-man can manage for a single company or in a single field? How do you think Petraeus got the top Iraqi command in the first place? Because he’d spent years building up Mosul, through an enormous public works program, and through various measures to jump-start the economy? I mean, your arguments are simply untenable.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
No, I didn’t read the post (I normally do) - I’m trying to do 2 dozen things at once at the moment.
But then, if you ARE looking for economic experience, why do you go with a military name?
Even assuming I HAD read the entire post, the names still don’t make sense:
1) You shouldn’t be looking for military experience, you should be looking for domestic experience, particularly on the economy.
2) If you ARE looking for economic experience, then you shouldn’t be going with a military name, you should be looking at an economic name.
Do you deny that their primary areas of expertise are military and foreign policy?
Why do so many people seem to think McCain should double-up on military credentials?
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I would say one reason a military person (as in career military) hasn’t been considered is that the image would be that McCain was a one facet person - all about the military. Defense and foreign policy is allready McCain’s signature issue, it’s what he has steadfast positions on and much passion for, at least that’s the image. McCain blows Obama away when it comes to foreign policy type issues, but seem to tie or do better than McCain when it comes to bread and butter issues. Whatever involvement in domestic issues that a general might have, it’s not what comes to mind when somenone thinks of a general. It seems a general would send the message that the McCain administration was going to be solely about the military. That’s not a winning message.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Matthew,
“Neo-cons wouldn’t love the pick, but we’ve considered, for expediency sake, sacrificing every other aspect of our ideological purity”
Actually, my reaction to McCain’s pick will probably be inversely correlated to the neo-cons when it comes to foreign policy. I wouldn’t mind jettisoning that ideological “purity” in the least.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Matthew, General Jones wouldn’t be willing to be VP.
He’s had a life in the military and now he’s cashing in on his contacts and expertise in the military. There’s certainly nothing amiss about that.
He’d accept a temporary appointment or a part-time position on a board.
He’s not going to accept a position like VP that limits his money making activities.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Matthew, just ignore act-blog…
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Let’s waste our time discussing a person who has never run for political office, who understand politics only from the military point of view, hasn’t been vetted and probably doesn’t even want the job. The top of the ticket deserves someone who has been willing to pressed the flesh, kissed the babies, get dragged through the media circus, and survived public scrutiny that ultimately comes with the job - these guys haven’t done that.