The American Spectator : Why Not John Bolton?

Text Size

Why Not John Bolton?

By Jed Babbin on 4.4.11 @ 6:09AM

The global punk community must feel lucky that he is not our president.

Since shortly before dawn on November 5, 2008, when the 2012 presidential race began, the lack of political acumen among Republicans vying for the next crack at Barack Obama has sunk them in an electoral malaise, a forlorn sense of ho-humness among party activists and likely voters that presages another four years of the Obama regime.

Those now in the top tier according to RealClearPolitics.com — Huckabee, Romney, Palin, and Gingrich, in that order — have been so alike in their condemnations of Obama’s domestic policies and in their generalized policy pronouncements that they have only worsened the malaise. And as others have stuck their toes in, there have been brief media-propelled moments of enthusiasm, but no movement among activists and voters sufficient to boost any of them to approach leadership.

It’s still about nine months before the first primaries so, old-school experts assure us, there’s plenty of time to unify around a compelling candidate. That may have been true in 2001, but no longer. As Obama proved in 2008, a candidate must be able to raise nearly $1 billion in funds and create a massive organization that is ready to conduct a national primary campaign’s ground game beginning this fall. That will take a long time and the clock is running down fast.

We of the scribbling class have prescribed a long list of criteria that the next nominee must satisfy in order to win. In combination, those criteria would describe someone who is an electrifying speaker with a dull personality, who has the executive experience of a big-state governor and profound foreign policy credentials, and is the budget equivalent of a grand master of chess who can save us from Barack-induced bankruptcy without touching Social Security or Medicare.

Neither is there such person nor is there a magic recipe for baking a sure-to-win candidate. I thought that Indiana Cong. Mike Pence would be close to an ideal candidate because he is the kind of calm, competent conservative we can trust and has a big enough personality to turn out the vote. But Pence — thinking of his family — took himself out of contention.

We need to start thinking seriously about who has the political skills, the education and experience and the personality to defeat Obama. We need to start thinking about John Bolton.

At Rep. Steve King’s recent Iowa cattle call, the former UN ambassador was introduced, according to a Washington Post report, as a diplomatic Dirty Harry, standing guard with “law books and .44 in hand” asking the world’s bad guys, “Feeling lucky, punks?” The global punk community — in the UN, in Old Europe, in the Senate Democratic cloakroom and the New York Times editorial suite — must feel lucky that Bolton is not our president.

But my friend John Bolton is not some heavily-armed avenger. I know him to be the same kind of calm, competent conservative that Pence is, and with the kind of experience and political skill that is the stuff of which leaders are made. And there is no reason to believe that Bolton will not enter the race.

Bolton’s political skill and judgment have not been given the attention they deserve. Many of the things he’s said and written evidence a kind of skill and judgment not yet discovered among the other would-be candidates.

For example, Bolton — at the Iowa cattle call — told Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Weisman that the Republican candidate in 2012 can’t rest his campaign only on Obama’s destruction of our economy. He said, “Politicians, like generals, have a tendency to fight the last war,” adding “We have to guard against solely complaining about the manifest inadequacies of Barack Obama’s domestic policies.”

That doesn’t mean the candidate shouldn’t campaign against Obama’s spending spree and Obamacare, just that they won’t be the only issues that will drive a successful campaign. The other big issue — national security — is one where Bolton is obviously stronger than the rest of the field.

For example, Bolton has condemned Obama’s war of choice in Libya in clear and compelling terms. In a new National Review piece, he condemned Obama’s deference to the UN and “humanitarian” basis for intervention as “a gauzy, limitless doctrine without any anchor in U.S. national interests.”

And he makes precisely the right point: “Let’s be blunt. The question comes down to this in every case: How many dead Americans is it worth to you?” Bolton is no neocon, no advocate of nation-building. He would, as this article says, ground American foreign policy only in U.S. national interests. And, most importantly, Bolton would renew the social contract between the White House and the troops which binds the president to spend American lives only when absolutely necessary, and not waste them in places such as Libya.

What is stunning about this is not that Bolton said it but that none of the other candidates have.

The title of Bolton’s 2007 book, Surrender Is Not an Option, is misleading. It evokes images of the confrontational “Dirty Harry” mentality of the Iowa cattle call introduction. But that’s not where it came from. As Bolton wrote, it came from his days as a high-school student volunteering for Barry Goldwater in 1964:

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 4.4.11 @ 6:42AM

I have watched and followed this man's idea's, talk on issues, and explanations with the interest of a Patriot of these United States, not a global citizen. I could care less what the pundit's say regarding him, now, of the past and even the future. One thing is certain, if the liberal media is in full tilt to destroy anyone, you know you have hit a raw nerve with them, so as always, it is a good thing for the country, contrary of what they shrill about. Bolton has always showed an intellect of a thinking-through-the-process person, and a soundbite to him appears to be a waste of time. I am starting to believe the process is falsely rigged in favor of who is the easiest to lose, i.e. Romney, Huckabee, etc. and at this juncture in our history, a weal horse is a weak horse. We can ill afford four more years from this disaster put in by the media the, "won" and only obamas bin lyn, geeeesh. The last thing we need right now is a liar, deceiver, its all about me, type. If we are to get the working families back to work in this country, this joker needs to have his arse handed back to him on a silver platter, with a promissory note attached for his share in his redistribution scheme, and a deportation order. Also, I want to see a Constitutional Amendment added to stipulate in the course of his/her actions as president, if the economy takes a dive, looses more than a 5 point spread in employment numbers, adds more than .1/2 percent of GDP, all benefits are off the table for their retirement, secret service squads, no speaking engagements, and absolutely no ties to foreign speaking for the sake of running down my country while getting the hundred million benefit, our 42nd liar-n-thief made off with. Lets see how many venture for another liars term.

Teaghan| 4.4.11 @ 8:54AM

Well, Barry "OFFICIALLY" kicked off his campaign this morning in a new video. And he is being touted as the billion dollar candidate.
Republicans best get their behinds in gear and NOT put up Huckleberry, Romney or Newt.
God help us.

Mimi| 4.4.11 @ 9:34AM

Same old same old....Politics over country!
How about JOBS ?.... and other Presidential DUTIES ? We need A LEADER SIR not another campaign right NOW !!!!!

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 1:14PM

Bolton thinks in a national emergency youths can be conscripted. WRONG. You could never do it anymore, everyone knows you want to defend your power-- not the Constitution.

Radioman777| 4.4.11 @ 1:56PM

Wrong. In a national emergency citizens can be conscripted. The congressional "power to raise armies" is the rationale for this. While conscript armies might be unpopular, as they generally are, they are constitutional. Today we have professional armed forces, of which I am a member. In a national emergency, say a large scale conflict involving one or two major powers, then the professional force would like be the core of what would be a large conscript force. The reason is military necessity - if you end up fighting a war of attrition, the nation with the larger force generally ends up winning.
One of the more bizarre turns of logic among the "thinking" crowd appears to be the conventional wisdom that we'll never fight a large scale conflict again. This is historically wrong; the only thing that seems to have prevented such a war so far is the presence of a nuclear deterrent. It's likely that some nation might determine that, regardless of the presence of a nuclear deterrent force, the possessor (us, for example) won't actually use it; leaving them free to pursue large scale land and naval warfare. In this case, a small professional force would soon be overwhelmed with trying to handle multiple things at once. A conscript force would be the only reasonable answer given the overwhelming force on force ratio. During the Cold War, the USSR could have fielded an army of up to 40 million in a matter of several months by tasking the reserve force (males aged 20 - 65, since presumably males 18 - 20 were already in the army/navy/air force). This would have, failing the use of nuclear weapons (neutron bomb, tactical nukes, etc.) forced an attrition scenario with the ultimate result that the larger force always wins when all else is relatively equal.

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 3:03PM

"tactical nukes"

If you try to conscript, there will be another civil war, and you will lose because other nations will invade by the time you would mobilize-- the situation is different from that of 1861- '65.
Only thing you might do is, yes, tactically nuke an invader under certain circumstances, and then conscript and mobilize. But IMO you cannot do it at all. No way. If you should ever attempt to conscript again, then I would want a bloodbath in America the like of which has not ever been seen; similar to Prussia in 1945- only larger in scale. Your families would be raped and put to the sword a la Prussia.

bill fish| 4.4.11 @ 4:43PM

The possibility of tactical nukes first and general conscription is much greater than the possiblity of a mass invasion of mainland USA.

Back in WW2, the Japanese were adverse to the idea of a mainland invasion of the US if for one simple reason: too many civilians with guns.
The same reason why Hitler was not keen on invading Switzerland. And the Swiss recently voted against putting guns in armories.

Of course there are the geographic barriers: Arctic Sea (along with the Bering Strait), and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The US does not need some extraordinary bloodbath on US soil (Gettysburg x1000) for general conscription to be successful.
9/11 would have been sufficient: the recuiting offices were overwhelmed with volunteers.

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 6:45PM

No WAY,
EMP can take out the web and enough backup systems, whatever they are they can be reduced or eliminated. Now, it is very unlikely any of the above will occur, or at least the worst-case scenarios. Odds are something we haven't thought of would happen.

Radioman777| 4.4.11 @ 7:16PM

"If you try to conscript, there will be another civil war". How do you know? Are you possessed of some sort of psychic power that enables you to see the future? The truth is, you don't. You're rendering a rash opinion based on personal beliefs and prejudices, not established facts.

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 9:29PM

Politics and business today are so corrupt, you will not find more than a division or two to scrape together- if that. Who is going to fight for you today? Clint, maybe.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 1:11AM

I dare anyone trying to conscript me! They will soon feel the working end of an NPR tote bag followed by the sting of my rolled up yoga mat.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 1:07AM

As a leftist coward I live in continual fear of being drafted, I can't stand the thought of my gay liberal lifestyle being intruded upon by anything that doesn't put me at the center of attention.

Handy| 4.4.11 @ 10:30PM

Sorry Radioman, conscription is slavery, pure and simple. It has always been unconstitutional.

I was drafted during the Tet Offensive in 1968. I had a long career as an Army officer, and would recommend that any young, fit people consisder military service. But, I hate the concept of involuntary servitude. For the most part the draftees of the Viet Nam era were a sorry lot. (BTW, so were most of the senior officers from the "Greatest Generation" who ran the show.)

A worthy nation, faced with dire circumstances will never have dificulty in attracting volunteers. An unworthy nation will never find enough competent, enthusiatic conscripts to get the job done.

Conscription=Slavery=Dead Nation.

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 10:37PM

Agreed, but there's nothing decent about it- it's nationalism (not patriotism) saying my country right or wrong.

Alan Brooks| 4.4.11 @ 10:40PM

...Nothing noble about defense- it is business, the business of nationalism.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 1:13AM

I can't think of any reason to defend any country. Actually once people learned the rules nazi germany probably wasn't bad place to live, yes I think I will get along just fine under islam.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 1:28AM

No one can say you aren't libertarian, Clint;
ID theft is your modus operandi.

Mimi| 4.4.11 @ 7:13AM

The primary debates are going to be fascinating, this time around. More of those running should declare....expect the top echelon of high poll getters to get the OBAMA...." CLEAR THE FIELD" smears. The top notch will survive this! BOLTON..??? see him as HIGH-UP on a lot of lists!!

Maddox| 4.4.11 @ 10:30AM

Yes! We need a leader who speaks loudly AND carries a big stick, both here and abroad. John Bolton could be the one.

Have you considered| 4.4.11 @ 7:40AM

I would absolutely support Amb. Bolton for POTUS. He has been my preferred candidate since he let drop that he may run. His straightforward style is impressive to me, and his knowledge of foreign affairs is superior to all the other potentials. I believe he would adhere to the Constitution, and be willing and able to fight the battles needed to save this country both domestically and internationally.

Steve B | 4.4.11 @ 7:52AM

I've stood next to too many politicians to be much impressed with their general level of courage, intelligence, and integrity.

So for what it's worth, I've attended precisely one meeting with John Bolton and about a dozen other people in the room. I found him to be intelligent, well-informed, and possessed of the kind of clear thinking that comes from the courage to see the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be.

For those who love America, and love freedom, this guy could be the best candidate since Barry Goldwater. And like Goldwater the media will systematically try to destroy him.

But this time we've got something Goldwater didn't have, the Internet...

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 3:26PM

The only reservation I have about Bolton, Jed, is the cost---to reinforce the Oval Office floor to take the weight of a real man as opposed to light in the loafers Barry and his former COS the ballerina.

What I like about Bolton is that he reminds me of Marciano---if he misses with the fist, he'll catch you with the elbow---but either way, you're going DOWN.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.4.11 @ 9:56PM

"as opposed to light in the loafers Barry and his former COS the ballerina."

You are too cruel, tool. :)

Larry| 4.4.11 @ 7:52AM

Bolton vs. Romney? Hucksterbee? Gingrich?

It's not even a contest as far as I'm concerned. This is a man who will not go on an apology tour. This is a man who will not count on the stupidity and gullabiity of the voting public in order to win. Who will put American interests first. Who will use the natural resources which this country has because he knows that doing so is good for our security and our economy.

I'd vote for John Bolton in a second.

roadmaster| 4.4.11 @ 8:14AM

I have Bolton's book, which he signed for me at the NRA convention in PHX last year. I've followed his career since the 80's and he just gets better. Not only that, his "stache" is almost as awesome as my own.
What is great about John is he can demolish a liberal/media hack's false premise (disguised as a question/argument) with a few, powerful words, perfect for sound bites, whereas the rest of the field will ramble on, dodge, dissemble and generally trot out all the weasel words politicians are famous for.
The lefties fear him because when he takes aim, he doesn't miss - gets them right between the eyes.

S. Ruger| 4.4.11 @ 8:14AM

Oh, yeah, sure, let's put in a joker who has been hot to put boots on the ground in Libya. Sounds wonderful, goes right along with the "Fall of the Roman Empire" drama that neocons love to act out.

Some of us prefer conservatism to imperialism, but it seems we're a disappearing breed.

Let's just shoot the wad -- well, it ain't much of a wad anymore -- on flamey, dramatic foreign adventures!

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 8:24AM

A. You need to go back re-read the article - if you bothered to read it the first time.

B. You need to read what Bolton has written on the Libyan situation before you criticize - it's obvious that you either haven't read it, or don't understand it.

martin j smith| 4.4.11 @ 8:27AM

Bolton in my mind has largely been a foreign policy guy. If he has any interest in running he would certainly have to get a wider scope than that. Having said that I would say he is my kind of foreign policy leader. I have no clue as to his intentions but if he does he should get started about the ECONOMY ETC. Another plus about Bolton is that he has faced the LEFT in regard to his being chosen as GWB's UN ambassador. He knows the and how they operate. I would add what whoever runs must be fully prepared to out fox,out maneuver,out run and GET MOOOOOOOOOR MOOOOOOONEY THAN THE SOCIALISTS--Oh yeas the Socialists are the "little people" aren't they ?

VBMax| 4.4.11 @ 9:16AM

Martin, I agree ..I know he's also fiscally conservative but we've not heard anything from him on this. He seems to have only carved out a niche for himself on foreign affairs.

irish19| 4.4.11 @ 2:00PM

Bolton as SecState.
Cain(sp?)/Palin or vice versa in '12.
Trump as SecTreas.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 3:28PM

He's a Goldwater Republican. Essentially, you're goinna get Reagan Redux with Bolton---but with an even better foreign policy grasp than Ronaldus Magnus.

Mike Hawk| 4.4.11 @ 8:41AM

John Bolton also knows that whimpering RINOs of the former Sen. Voinovich type need to be grabbed by the well ....appropriate parts, they have no cajones to grab...and lead, not left to their own muddles senses.

Mike Hawk| 4.4.11 @ 8:42AM

make that 'muddled senslessness'

Booger | 4.4.11 @ 9:13AM

John Bolton's 'stache could take a Kenyan down all by itself.

Fabian| 4.4.11 @ 5:53PM

Hey Boogie woogie, how ye be?

William R| 4.4.11 @ 9:18AM

Bolton still Bonkers

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=13995

SeattleBred| 4.4.11 @ 12:44PM

Good reference, William. Mr. Bolton is well entrenched in AEI, a neo-con organization, for certain. I've always been concerned about his foreign policy ideas, his demonstrable arrogance and sense of self-importance. Be careful: just because the field appears lame, don't jump for joy at the latest suggestion...

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.4.11 @ 1:26PM

Define what you consider to be a "neo-con organization" and please cite some examples of "neo-con" activity specific to AEI.

Joan of Arch Angelry| 4.4.11 @ 5:55PM

LOL, guess you haven't been around these parts for too long.
A Neo-con is anyone who isn't a Paleo-conservative or a Liberal-terrier.

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 2:46PM

After reading the commentary you posted, I disagree with it's author. We DO need to support Israel if and when they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (though it looks like their software worm has done plenty of damage, so actual bombs may not be necessary for a while). Stating that Bolton is "bonkers" because of that is typical of liberal ad hominem attacks.

The Bishop| 4.4.11 @ 9:19AM

Excellent article. Bolton is articulate in ways that Obama could only dream (and without a teleprompter). Side-by-side comparisons will leave Obama in the dust. Bolton is one I would love to see at the top of the ticket.

scythe| 4.4.11 @ 9:21AM

The majority in this country will never elect a man who looks like a walrus. No matter what he stands for.

Drunken Sailor| 4.4.11 @ 10:28AM

Apparently you have never seen pictures of Teddy Roosevelt.

scythe| 4.4.11 @ 5:19PM

Apparently you think 100 years haven't come and gone.

Willis| 4.4.11 @ 11:58AM

Actually, I think the mustache (which is real) could be a big part of Bolton's campaign and appeal. Good grief, Obama's successful campaign was based on his intelligende and speaking ability (and that was not real).

Calvin | 4.4.11 @ 3:07PM

Scythe;
I resemble that remark.
If Mr. Bolton is elected, the moustache will replace all other tonsorial enthusiasms.
I always thought Tom Selleck looked ok with one.

scythe| 4.4.11 @ 5:20PM

John Bolton? Tom Selleck? My mother-in-law had a mustache too. Is Tom running? Who knew.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:26PM

Selleck, as all who know him know, is a Conservative Republican. With a great Stache.

Hell, I'll grow one if he's running.

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 9:23AM

One of the problems that I see going into 2012 is that too many Republicans seem to have the attitude that we're going to have to run the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan to win, and any candidate who is not the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan doesn't have a chance. In my mind, that's a defeatist attitude.

I think there are a number of potential Republican candidates who can mop the floor with Obama if only:

A. They express their positions and views with courage and conviction - and consistency - and don't pander to those who don't like them anyway (like him or not, John Bolton would certainly NOT have a problem doing this), and

B. We don't sabotage them.

Unfortunately, these two things too often seem to be mutually exclusive. There is a history of Republican Presidential candidates - and I include both Bushes in this - who speak as though they are more concerned about being inoffensive to those who don't like them anyway than they are about consistently expressing their sincere convictions (What conviction does Mitt Romney stand for, for example, aside from the conviction that he wants to be President?). John McCain was the pinnacle of this philosophy, and we see how that worked out.

Likewise, there is a history of Republican voters either lining up to vote for (and give money to) a candidate based on who's next, rather than who will get the job done (again, I point to Romney), or else refusing to support a strong candidate because that candidate either fails some litmus test (usually on one social issue or another), or because the media doesn't like them (which I consider a credit to them, myself), or in this election, because they're not the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

The reality is that there a lot of good, young talent in the Republican party. Unfortunately, much of that young talent has announced it is NOT running for President. How much of that reluctance, I wonder, arises out of a concern that in a diluted field - i.e. - one with many candidates, that it will be he (or she) with the best residual organization from last time who will have the greatest advantage, and not he (or she) with the most ability and best qualities for the job?

We Republicans need to GET OFF whatever bandwagon we were on four years ago and step back and take a look at the ENTIRE field, not just the one or two candidates we liked who lost to John McCain or Barack Obama last time. We need to assess our priorities and make our decisions accordingly. Do we want someone who will first address economics? Our need for energy in an increasingly hostile world? Do we want someone who will recognize our enemies for who they are (and out friends for who they are) and craft a consistent presence in the international world?

USSAlabama| 4.4.11 @ 10:46AM

I'm FOR Bolton. All he needs is a Christie on the ticket.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:21PM

Christie is weak on terror, apparently. How about Allen West on the ticket?

Teaghan| 4.4.11 @ 12:33PM

Don't forget Big E, we will have the bought and paid for liberal media to deal with. They got Barry elected.

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 2:43PM

I'm not discounting that, but also don't forget, if the "bought and paid for liberal media" determined the outcome of elections then the House would still be in the hands of the Democrats, and the Senate would still have a 60 seat Dem majority. The fact is that the left-wing propaganda machines of CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the NYT, etc. do not have the influence they once had. Sites like this one are just one example of why.

George True| 4.4.11 @ 11:31PM

Do not underestimate the power of the Democrat-owned mainstream media. They have boasted that their influence is good for a 10 point difference. They are probably right. While they do not have the influence they once did, your average uninformed voter still gets most of his/her information from the MSM. In the 2010 election, the MSM had a lot of balls to keep in the air simultaneously. In 2012, they will be able to devote the majority of their resources to the presidential contest.

Even the MSM can no longer pretend they are unaware of all the lies, corruption, and lawlessness of the Obama administration. Nevertheless, they have announced their intention to carry Obama's water again, and to continue to cover up any negative information about him.. They have decided they will die on that hill, if necessary.

The only way to counteract the MSM's influence as the de facto propaganda arm of the DNC in 2012 is for the Republicans to have an absolute firebreather of a candidate. A Casper Milquetoast RINO will not do. Even a died in the wool conservative who is not a dynamic messenger will not do. (I really like Palin, but she is still not a strong speaker and debater. Remember, we need a firebreather.) That pretty much narrows the list down to two or three people, IMHO. Of the potential candidates who are currently on the horizon, we are talking Trump, Cain, and Christie. Christie says he is not running, so that leaves Trump and Cain.

Both have enormous credibility as successful businessmen, and both are extremely well spoken. Either one could shred Obama in a debate. Cain has the added attraction of being a "real" black man, and Trump has already demonstrated he is not afraid to go after Obama on the birth certificate issue. Bolton is probably the only other potential candidate who is in a league with Trump and Cain. Like them, he is not afraid to call a spade a spade, and he is not slow to correct MSM reporters on their false premises.

The MSM will of course do their best to character assasinate and destroy whoever the GOP candidate is, but Trump, Cain, and Bolton have shown that they are not afraid to fight back, and in fact relish the fight. Any of them would aggessively challenge the MSM on every false premise posed as a question, and none of them would allow Obama to get away with his blatant lies and prevarications in a debate or on the campaign trail. Only a candidate like this can overcome the combination of the MSM bias and the massive Democrat voter fraud.

We must not allow the MSM or the Democrats to choose our candidate for us. If we do, we will most likely end up with Romney or Huckabee, and that will most likely give Obama a second term.

irish19| 4.4.11 @ 2:04PM

Excellent points! While I do not advocate insisting on complete conservative purity, I don't think we can afford another RINO. We especially cannot afford to let the legacy media determine our candidate.
We must insist on a candidate with strong, if not necessarily perfect, conservative credentials. We must also increase our lead in the House & take the Senate.

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 2:53PM

Irish, I agree. No more RINO's, EVER. We can win with strong, steadfast conservative principles, that's what has always worked. Any time we've sent up a RINO (or Democrap lite), we LOSE. I think most people would rather have someone who believes in principles that they won't compromise (good or bad), so why elect someone who will?

McCain never had a chance in my opinion, because there were too many people like myself who saw no strong conservative principles in him that he would not sacrifice. I appreciate the fact that he's a war hero, but too much "reaching across the aisle" and acts like "McCain-Feingold" are what put me against him.

I don't know enough about John Bolton, but everything I've seen about him leads me to believe he is a strong conservative. If so, he will have my support.

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 3:02PM

I completely agree about needing to avoid "RINO's," but I think we also need to beware how we throw that term around. We need to decide what's important, what really matters, at this point in history, and the reality is that the candidate who can best deal with the important stuff may well be someone whose positions on less important stuff is not what we would like for it to be.

Right now, our country is at war with an enemy that is dedicated to our destruction with a religious zeal - literally. Personally, I think most Americans either do not appreciate the full magnitude of that situation ( i.e. - the fact that yes, this is a war for our very existence), or else are in denial about it. Certainly, the last TWO Presidents didn't fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation (yes, the last TWO. GWB acted as though he was either ignorant of the true nature of our enemy, or else in denial about it). We also have serious economic problems, and frankly, that storm has not yet fully hit, and energy and fiscal policies which are doing nothing but making the first two problems worse.

To me, those should be our priorities, and addressing those priorities are the FIRST things I want to hear from any prospective candidate. Everything else, in my mind at least, is secondary. We can argue about them later. If we don't win this war, get our economy back on track, get a handle on our budget, and implement some rational policy for our energy future, then we're not going to need to worry about the other stuff because there won't be enough of America left worry about.

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 3:34PM

I should have said the last THREE Presidents (I forgot about Der Sclictmeister).

Doctor Right| 4.4.11 @ 9:25AM

Bolton is actually my first choice, and has been since I heard several months back that he was considering a run for the Oval Office.

He stands head and shoulders above all of the "Bland Brigade" (Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels) on "the issues", has the requisite experience, is a genuine Conservative, and a Patriot.

Lastly, the mainstream media hates him. That's good enough for me.

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 2:54PM

"Bland brigade".... Awesome! :-)

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 3:43PM

Correct as usual, Doctor.

s bennett| 4.4.11 @ 9:32AM

Herman Cain Pres.,John Bolton VP.It,s magic!!

Larry| 4.4.11 @ 9:40AM

That would be great. Certainly better than Gingrich, Romney or Huckabee in the 1 or 2 spot.

tatosian| 4.4.11 @ 10:46PM

Why Herman Cain?

Bob K.| 4.4.11 @ 9:48AM

This timely article lauding Reagan appears on the same day that one by David Goldman (aka Spengler) also appears in Asia Times. This also lauds Reagan and explains why there is no one to take his place on the Republican horizon--yet.

The curious and concerned will read them both and contrast them and come to their own conclusions.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/G.....5Dj02.html

Bob K.| 4.4.11 @ 10:04AM

OK--Now that I have your attention. Mr. Babbin's article doesn't mention Reagan!

But since our foreign policy is intimately connected with our economy, how can we justify a Presidential candidate who has formulated no economic policy? Reagan had one and it was intimately connected with his foreign policy.

Drunken Sailor| 4.4.11 @ 10:32AM

You might want to read his speech given at the Federalist society for how he ties foreign policy and economic policy.

http://www.aei.org/speech/28748

Bob K.| 4.4.11 @ 12:21PM

Thanks. I will.

W| 4.4.11 @ 10:12AM

Bolton speaks clearly and logically, he will do well in the debates, and against obama who speaks in platitudes and psychobabble.

buckeyeman| 4.4.11 @ 11:16AM

A two page article promoting the potential candidacy of John Bolton and NOT ONE WORD about his philosophy of domestic governance. I suspect that I would likely agree with whatever he thinks based on the clarity of his thinking and speech in other areas, but it sure would be nice to have an actual factoid about this.

One thing is certain. We need someone outside the commonly promoted lists of "potential" candidates. Bolton? Herman Cain? Someone else? Anyone else? The angst in the blogosphere over the lack of any decent, competetive, truly conservative candidate is so thick you could cut the angst in the blogosphere it with a knife. It's probably too late anyway, but it would sure be nice to go down swinging.

Jean| 4.4.11 @ 11:16AM

I like John Bolton and wished he had a bigger role in our government. This guy takes no prisoners and I like that. I would certainly vote for him for POTUS.
I also like Newt and Huck...but Newt has way too much baggage. Bolton for President!

bill glass| 4.4.11 @ 11:21AM

1st Choice - Pence ( not running )
2nd Choice - Cain ( 95+% in )
3rd Choice - Bolton
Others - Palin? Bachmann? West?

David T| 4.4.11 @ 12:11PM

I welcome them all to the debate, but not one of them has a chance of winning.

Larry| 4.4.11 @ 3:34PM

I'd have no problem with Palin, Bachmann or West. West is a freshman though. Although that didn't stop Comrade Golfer, Congressman West should get more government experience in Washington, run and hopefully win the gubernatorial seat, serve there for a couple of years and then run for president.

John| 4.4.11 @ 11:29AM

Jon Bolton is a newconservative sh** . His policies cost thousands of lives and were to the deficit what petrol is to fire. Definitely a first rate ****

Willis| 4.4.11 @ 12:05PM

John, not enough asterisks. You need more to get you point across clearly. Plus, you forgot one for the "h" in Bolton's name.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 3:30PM

Well, if John the Baby decapitator lover is opposed to him, that's another reason to vote for him.

Home of the Brave| 4.4.11 @ 5:58PM

Hawks-R-Us Johnny boy.
Better get used to it.
We aren't gonna allow panty waist isolationists and terrorist sympathizers to run this country.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:22PM

HOTB,

I like you, I really do.

Home of the Brave| 4.4.11 @ 7:35PM

Likewise I'm sure, Mr. OT.

skip| 4.4.11 @ 9:10PM

Raghead Bin Pound Sand, is that you?

David T| 4.4.11 @ 11:35AM

Bolton's a storm that goes through and cleans out all the bad air--wonderfully clear and refreshing and invigorating. But I fear he'd be painted as an extremist like Goldwater. How about SECSTATE or SECDEF in a Haley Barbour administration?

Teaghan| 4.4.11 @ 12:37PM

No one, I mean NO ONE with Barbour's southern twang will be president! ugh!

David T| 4.4.11 @ 4:55PM

Haley's clean, bright, articulate, and doesn't use a southern twang unless he wants to.

Home of the Brave| 4.4.11 @ 7:57PM

And I don't think he's got a crease in his pantsy's or a tingle up his leg.
So there.

Jack| 4.4.11 @ 11:37AM

John Bolton has a lot of charisma and I think he shows clarity when speaking. He also goes on Red Eye which shows he still has a sense of humor even in dire times. Bolton, Cain would certainly make for a dynamic duo. I hate to see another warmed over career politician. We just need to back who ever gets the nomination with our last ounce of energy. I can't stand to watch any more of this. What is going on is borderline treasonous.

Wayne | 4.4.11 @ 12:23PM

How tied is Bolton to the Neo-cons? I see his distrust of the UN, but we really do have to quit fighting everyone else's wars.

Red Phillips | 4.4.11 @ 12:58PM

Bolton is very much a hawk, but he is not a neocon. He is more of a nationalist.

irish19| 4.4.11 @ 2:16PM

An American nationalist would be just fine with me. This whole "citizen of the world" shtick gets real old real quick. America First!

Red Phillips | 4.4.11 @ 12:56PM

Bolton is the niche candidate for bitter ender interventionists who don't think Gingrich, Santorum, Palin etc. are belligerent and fear mongering enough. His only appeal can be as an interventionist hawk.

Well I've got news for Mr. Babbin and other potential Bolton supporters. The base and the movement is moving away from belligerent interventionism. Just look at the response on the right to Libya. They haven't yet embraced Ron Paul style non-interventionism, but neither do they want a candidate who distinguishes himself by being the designated most hawkish candidate.

Jeamar37| 4.4.11 @ 1:26PM

Bolton is the best choice but the average person who is not particularly interested in politics other than to vote does not know who he is. Bolton needs to change that fast if he wants to run. Romney is unelectable because of his religion. (Perhaps only those who live in the West realize the extent of undercover anti-Mormonism.) Huckleby says a run would ruin him financially and he doesn't think many could overcome Obama's $1 billion war chest, and furthermore, he is happy with what he is doing. Palin, unfortunately, is a person one loves or hates and there are not enough of the former to elect her. Let's hope Bolton decides to run, announces his candidacy, and gets into campaign mode soon.

Strudwick Wickerwire| 4.4.11 @ 1:47PM

The best republican candidate needs to be put front and center, but not since Reagan has that happened. Although republicans have won elections, policy has remained stagnant and the fiscal can continued to get kicked... The republican nominee should be able to go head-to-head with Obuckethead and eviscerate the anointed (oily one) with the facts and not allow Obuckethead to say, ' he wants to raise cap-gains taxes,' simply because it creates fairness, discounting the fact lowering the tax increases revenue to the treasury!!! That leftist lie should never be allowed to happen, ever!!!

There are potential candidates who can lay the wood to Omugabe and they need to be loud and unafraid!!!

Who Knows?| 4.4.11 @ 1:56PM

Has anyone been elected president who NEVER ran for anything, let alone won, or governed?

Just writing.

There IS always a first time, though, and I surely “hope” for a “change” in the voter’s consciousness that brings one such as Bolton to the presidency.

Still---

The essence of the American, and “modern world”, problem is personal---politics is ALWAYS personal!

Each of us, in our own karmic fashion, just plays out our unique form of Narcissus.

So, what is the demographically obvious truth?

America is AGING; so more and more citizens, especially voters, quicker and quicker lose their youthful élan vital, and too soon PAIN arrives.

To boot, with global fattening, far too many people are old before their time, as excess weight makes them grossly sorrowful, and indeed ugly to look at, even.

It’s a risk-reward world, as well. Thus, as pain---physical, emotional, mental and psychic---comes to dominate one’s awake time, and pleasure is more and more fleeting, escape is the overwhelming desire.

Witness all the drug company ads on TV, etc!

Therefore, most Americans are ALREADY taking life PERSONALLY, and taking it out on the voting system---that is, doing whatever helps ME feel less pain.

And----SLEEP!

Yes, 24/7 the permeating theme of Americans, at least the majority, is to either sleep, or dull the self-generated pain a Narcissistic life has karmically brought them.

Altogether, then, America is having a PAINFUL and SLEEPING hissy fit.

Agreed---there still exists a pocket of miraculous, vital Americans, who are raging against this storm, so the Tea Party reactionaries are putting up a fight against the dominant strain in our evolving American “DNA”.

America needs a cosmic political enema.

Washington D.C, epitomized by the fat headed Charles Schumer, say, is so full of excrement that there might not exist an enema bag large enough to purge it!

We’ll---soon enough see: ‘er, SMELL how it all “comes out”.

Larry| 4.4.11 @ 3:36PM

Dwight Eisenhower was not in politics before becoming President.

The Big E| 4.4.11 @ 3:41PM

"Has anyone been elected president who NEVER ran for anything, let alone won, or governed?"

Eisenhower was the last to do this.

Who Knows?| 4.4.11 @ 7:07PM

Oops---my bad.

Ike, like, was probably quite the exception, though?

Bolton hasn't won world war "anything".

Eisenhower was about as pure of an obvious choice for both parties, after the singular horror of WW II.

Maybe AFTER the USA and the civilized world defeat the barbaric Islamic terror masters in WW III (still unacknowledged), whoever turns out to be the General in charge of this triumph will become president.

With respect to THIS world war, however, the free peoples are about where they were when Hitler was invading the Rhineland, Austria, or whatever.

What will be the Islamic equivalent to the German invasion of Poland September 1, 1939? Not taking down the Twin Towers, obviously!

Too many people in power are replaying "Munich", Chamberlain wanabes, everyone of them.

I still think it WILL take a horrifying attack by the crazed Muslim horde to wake up a firm majority of Americans, so in a way all the energy and thought about who the sleeping dwarves (American liberals, etc) and awake giants (conservatives, etc) will elect in 2012 awaits --

TROUBLE.

In River City!

Calvin | 4.4.11 @ 3:09PM

I think our first 3 presidents had not been elected to political office.

Joe D.| 4.4.11 @ 3:34PM

Mr. Babbin aren't you exaration a little. I think alot. What we do not need is a moderate like McCain or Dole in there. Someone who is not afraid to speak the truth and call Obama out on his lies. If he is a concervative the other things will take care of itself.

R. Gruel| 4.4.11 @ 4:22PM

I would vote for Bolton or McChrystal or Barbour or Palin. If none of those are the presidential candidate, I will vote for noone

DON| 4.4.11 @ 4:30PM

My Ideal Candidate will do this:
Get us out of the Middle East.
This has been going on since Jimmy Carter's days, and has ratcheted up since Gulf War I, which I supported, as I did Iraq and of course, Afghanistan WHEN WE WERE HUNTING Bin Laden.
That mission is over.
It really is about Oil.
Let's all admit that this is our National interest and why we are there. Oil.
Nation Building is not a winner.
Americans are tired after 10 years of whatever it is we're doing in the Middle East.
And we are getting MORE entangled by the day.
Develop our own Natural Resources, Drill our own Oil and Gas, strengthen our relationships with Canada and So America
Develop modern nuclear power
Solar,Wind,Hydro.
Any and all to break our dependence on the Middle East...
The successful candidate will need a formula to put Americans to work, preferably in Manufacturing.We have way too many people unemployed, or underemployed because we have offshored our manufacturing. In it's wake, we have people unemployed, collecting benefits.
Jobs will get these people OFF the dole, and get them back as productive citizens and as taxpayers.
My candidate will be,like Mr Bolton, an ADULT that speaks in plain english.
I will withhold my vote until I hear his ENTIRE plan, not just his foreign policy ideas,which I like.
My candidate,like Rep Ryan, will educate Americans about the essential need to seriously reform Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security and Public Pensions.
Mr Ryan is also an "adult"
This is the solution to the absolute rotten mess politicans have created.
Work LONGER, Pay a bit more, and Receive Less.
Like it or not, that is what will work.
These criminals have taken our Social Security taxes that WE paid, and squandered it.
This is "not" an entitlement. This is "our" money.
However, the mess has been made, and now we, the people, have to suck it up and fix it, thru working longer, receiving less..
Damn their eyes for what they've done.
I have yet to see a Repub that has thrown his/her hat in the ring that I can get behind.
I pray for another Ronald Reagan. The Gipper was also faced with a social security mess and he and Tip O'Neill reached across the asile and put forth the prescription I laid out above.
Mr Reagan had a STEEL Backbone with our enemies, actually calling them what they were, and an economic visionary that let entrepneurs loose to do what they do best...Create jobs.
May God help and Bless us as we address the serious issues we face.

knowsitallsup| 4.4.11 @ 4:33PM

Wow, I thought I was the only Conservative out here that was HOT for Bolton in Washington! Straight talk, look you in the eye, no holds barred, impressive guy. Even as Sec of State he would improve our standing in the world. Not that the world would "like" us. No, that they would freakin FEAR us. You see what is happening with Obamas "cool voice" approach. FIERY DOMINOES. Just what the Washington Radicals want. Burn it all down to remake it in an image closer to their hearts. Fabian Socialists. Like my husband says, "I dont care WHY my children behave themselves. Fear of me or respect for me, either way, they dont act like idiots. And THAT is my goal."

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:24PM

You have not read my posts, where I have referred to John Bolton as a "Dream Rabbit," to quote PG Wodehouse. I'm sure Mr. Bolton is also very sound on Pekes.

Joe R| 4.4.11 @ 5:13PM

Right now, Bolton is the only potential Republican candidate who seems to know his rump from third base especially when it comes to foreign affairs. He's also the only one I would vote for

e track from saq| 4.4.11 @ 6:26PM

I would vote for a monkey before I would vote for the idiot in occupancy.Bolton or the chimp from monster.com anything beats the devil.

Jose Luis Stecca| 4.5.11 @ 12:15AM

BullsEye !! I'd vote for Bolton in a heartbeat.. I would also vote for Pee Wee Herman, Larry the Cable Guy or Jethro Bodine... ANYBODY but Obama !!

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.4.11 @ 7:07PM

Palin, Bolton, Cain. President, Vice-president, Secretary of State.
Any order, any combination, as long as they all are there.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:25PM

Michael, this Frog (TCU, not, Blech, French) thanks you again.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.4.11 @ 7:12PM

By the way, thank you Mr. Babbin and thank you Ret. Marine.

Home of the Brave| 4.4.11 @ 8:07PM

Ya know,

There's good, better and best in life. And contrary to what the Paleos and Ron Paul fanatics think and say, a vote for any Republican who becomes the nominee is better than a vote for Obama.

Unless of course ya think reelecting him for another 4 years is a good thing.

There are so many great conservatives out there. We got 'em, we just need to get behind 'em.

No lousy isolationists or anti-Israel putz's welcome!

Dan| 4.4.11 @ 9:05PM

The liberal media, is that an oxymoron, will crucify him if he runs.

loulou| 4.4.11 @ 9:17PM

The liberal media will trash ANY GOP candidate. Bolton has the brains and character to deal with the media midgets. So do Cain, Trump, Bachmann and West.

junkyard infidel| 4.5.11 @ 2:22AM

bolton & demint ?

Stoshio| 4.5.11 @ 4:08PM

Infidel, you just may have something there. Two pretty smart, unapologetic patriots that can handle their own.

Dee See| 4.5.11 @ 5:07AM

---AT LEAST Bolton's not afraid to
admit RED China is a totalitarian and
awesomely genocidal regime foisted
by the Globalist-Corporate-Socialist
EUGENISTS.

If he's able to throw some of his dubious
connections under the bus and stride
fearlessly into the light on the matter of
our 4 decades of sellout and TREASON
-----he'd have our vote.

figusja| 4.5.11 @ 7:10AM

I have two problems with the writers premise. He stated that the GOP candidate must be ready to raise $1 billion to fight Hussein O'. Also that the GOP candidate can not base their campaign on the destruction of Hussein O'.
First I will answer the campaign strategy. OF COURSE you can base your campaign on the destruction of Hussein O'. Thats what happened last time. Bush derangement syndrome was what everyone was saying. Just attack Bush and all his policies. Make him the devil. What was that? You say it won't work because he is black and people will call them racist? That leads to the second part. The people who supported him were people with white guilt. Those businessmen and rich who bankrolled his campaign. They are wise to his game now. He will have to dig deeper now to get even a fraction of what he got last time. The business community is wise to his game. And middle American knows who the real enemy of the country is now.

fleegl| 4.5.11 @ 4:43PM

At least, Bolton would save us from both Barak Obama and Donald Trump!

maryclaudia| 4.6.11 @ 1:52AM

Dear Lord, please give us John Bolton for POTUS in 2012, but, before then, please speak to him about a makeover. I think somewhere in there is a nice-looking man.

Occam's Tool| 4.12.11 @ 1:29AM

Maryclaudia,

get your nine year old niece to write him a letter. That worked for Abe Lincoln.

Man, do I like HOTB.

Occam's Tool| 4.12.11 @ 1:32AM

Scythe,

How did the "I am the walrus" song go?

Ray Cathode| 5.15.11 @ 12:49AM

Your article contains at least one false premise. The one that bothers me the most is that it takes a billion dollars for a candidate to win. Actually, it takes a billion dollars for Obama to win against a progressive retread like John McCain.

SH | 5.17.11 @ 8:41PM

Remember that most voters do not have long attention spans and the major way they receive information is via television. While I would vote for Bolton in a minute, his style does not shine in a three minute tv slot. The only person who can unseat BHO is HRC.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:51AM

It's still about nine months before the first primaries so, old-school experts assure us, there's plenty of time to unify around a compelling candidate.

Fay| 8.10.11 @ 6:52PM

I think there is no better person to restore integrity to the White House, lead our nation out of this mess, and posture this great country for the future than John Bolton. You are most fortunate to call him friend. A John Bolton/Ron Paul administration would be the perfect ticket.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:55PM

is good

Ann Marie Cott| 9.21.11 @ 10:07PM

Let's hear more from John Bolton!