Building off the fascinating discussion last week about Judd Gregg’s potential VP or POTUS viability, I came up yesterday with another suggestion for a 2012 Republican VP candidate: Secretary of Defense Gates. While Gates has not declared how long he will hold his current position (supposedly at least for Obama’s first year in the White House), he has suggested that he will step down before the end of Obama’s first term, allowing room for time to gear up for the 2012 campaign trail. I jotted down some pro’s and con’s:
Pro’s
Con’s
I firmly believe that the oft-mentioned frontrunners for 2012 would all need a running mate with foreign policy expertise. With slim pickings (Rudy, Petraeus as a far stretch, perhaps a foreign policy-focused Senator, and not much else) in this department among prominent conceivable 2012 VP candidates not connected to the Bush administration, Gates seems like a good option.
I also believe that Gates would most effectively complement an economics-focused governor, like Romney or Sanford. Furthermore, he would provide regional balance (born in Kansas, served as President of Texas A&M) for candidates like Romney, Palin and Pawlenty. All in all, I think the combination of a governor, with their focus on domestic issues – especially an economics-focus governor, as previously stated – and an admired authority in the area of knowledge typically lacking in governors – foreign policy – would provide a deadly one-two punch for taking down the Obama Machine and saving America from stagflation and endangered national security.
What do you think? Am I nuts? Or am I on to something here?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Gates is hardly a hawk.
Also this:
#
# Served as SecDef under Obama – This could prove a double-edged sword, as campaigning for VP in 2012 might compel him to indirectly criticize his own work as SecDef if he rails against Obama’s foreign policy
March 31st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Do many independents want a hawk? Doesn’t it seem like the Bush years have frightened much of the general electorate from a neoconservative foreign policy?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Gates for VP? Perhaps you’re onto something. I could see Obama jettisoning the ‘blow’hard
Biden in 2012.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
how old will gates be in 4 years?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
#3, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT WHEN I SAW THE HEADER!
March 31st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
4,
Gates’s birthday is September 25, 1943, so he’ll be 68 years old for much of the 2012 campaign season.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Anthony,
It’s not the policy that was feared, but the perceived incompetence, absence of success and cost in American lives.
The situation in Iraq, since the surge, has improved dramatically — and, in turn, so has the level of support. In March, just four Americans were killed in combat; a total of 49 in the past seven months combined.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
5 – Me too!!!
March 31st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Yeah – not too sure about this one. Working under Obama will pobably be a hard sell for GOP voters – and will make it harder to differentiate our ticket from theirs. Really old analogy – but that’s one big reason Wendell Wilkie lost to FDR in 1940. Granted Roosevelt was popular, but Willkie basically agreed with all of his programs – so he basically made Roosevelt’s argument for him.
Plus, Gates is a total unknown on domestic policy. He’s a defense policy wonk – which means he is much better suited for appointed executive offices than the Vice Preisdency
March 31st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I also thought it was likely to be Obama’s VP. But anyway…
Hopefully we’ve seen from the example of Petraeus that it is very hard to get a military person to run against the person they served under. It’s most unlikely that Gates would willingly run against (let alone criticise) the guy he reported to.
The idea of putting a military/foreign affairs guy as VP to a fiscally focused Governor makes a lot of sense. But who is a foreign policy speciliast in the Senate/House? McCain would be the go-to guy in that space, and he’s gone. Hagel would be a popular general election pick (& socon to boot) but would be unlikely to run against Obama who he obviously likes.
One could find another General, but its a big risk (Stockdale, anyone?). The only military guy I can think of currently elected to congress is a Dem, in PA. So that’s not much use to the GOP.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Im voting for nuts.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
JayPe,
I’m a fan of John Bolton in that role – he’s got charisma, speaking skills, and seems to have some working domestic knowledge(at least based on CPAC speech)
March 31st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Aron,
You make a great point, but at a time when so many Americans fear for their financial survival, you don’t think the electorate may respond to a call for the United States to acknowledge the scarcity of its resources and scale back some of its massive foreign entanglements? After all, Bush ran in 2000 on a “humble” foreign policy that seeks to safeguard America’s strategic interests without overextending our international power and influence. Of course, you can argue that the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan protect our strategic interests, and I completely respect and appreciate that viewpoint, but a less hawkish, yet still strong, foreign policy could pay dividends in separating the GOP from the unpopular Bush years and reinventing the party to build coalitions and achieve future electoral success.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Based on that add in NY-20, which everyone thought would backfire, which appeared to help close the gap…I would say, no.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Anthony you’re on fire. You’re definitely right about complementing Governor’s like Romney and Sanford. I think Romney/Sanford with Gates as v.p. is my new dream ticket. Or think of this, Gregg/Gates. Probably too moderate a ticket but certainly a competitive one.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
In a word — no. I believe that’s a trite red herring generally posited by isolationists and paleocons. Rather than repeat myself, I responded at length to this question two weeks ago.
http://race42008.com/2009/03/16/the-meaning-of-mark-sanford/#comment-416824
…which was before 9/11, rendering those prudent intentions moot.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Bolton would be interesting, as the first moustache-wearing candidate for some time. But is he VP material? A fairly light political resume in senior positions. UnderSec for Arms Control hasn’t often been a launching pad for national political success. And Richardson hardly used his UN Ambassador stint as a qualification (and if he did, it didn’t help him much).
March 31st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
As far as hunting for a Senator with foreign policy chops, would Lindsey Graham fit the bill? He’s a regular on the talking circuit, and is not too old at 54. He’d have 10 years under his belt by the time 2012 rolled around.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Aron,
I understand what you mean about 9/11 changing the terms of the debate. I just want to clarify that I don’t mean to advocate an isolationist foreign policy – essentially cutting ourselves off from the world. Rather, I mean that recognizing that our resources, whether national wealth, tax revenues, military equipment or quite frankly the lives of our brave soldiers, do not stretch on forever could help the GOP regain a reputation as the responsible, foresighted party with America’s long-term prosperity and vitality at heart.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
You can tell a lot about a person’s governing philosophy and world view if you ask them whether they prefer Gates or Rumsfeld. I myself am a Rumsfeld man, always will be – that man would have made one hell of a President given the opportunity.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Goldman,
From your poll from February:
“How important is it for the U.S. to withdraw troops in 16 months?
Very important 46%
Somewhat important 32%”
You can bet that number was even higher pre-election given the rhetoric flying around. By the time of the election, people may have been feeling that the war was going well but this poll supports the notion that they still supported the way Obama presented his withdrawal plan and did not support the way McCain presented his plan for victory. Rhetoric is what matters in political campaigns after all, the actual facts often get dusted under a carpet.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
From the Carville poll today:
Obama approval/disapproval Likely voters: 57/35
Warm/Cool feelings Likely Voters
NRA 46/34
Pro-life groups 38/38
NAFTA 25/39
Gay marriage 29/52
War in Afghanistan 34/41
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_demcorps325.php
March 31st, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I am sending her $.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIH5knCT6fM
March 31st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Nate Silver says Feinstein’s weariness about EFCA is a sign she’s going to run. If she runs, she’ll clear the field for the dems and destroy Whitman or whoever emerges from the Republican side.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:00 am
23 – Me too. She’s not the most natural speaker or politician, but it struck me watching that announcement that she actually seem sincere, and politicians never strike me that way.
But I don’t know how Feinstein wouldn’t demolish her.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:11 am
Anthony, no, the idea of Bob Gates for VP is not nuts (as of now). But, if Obama should stumble badly and become vulnerable in 2012 the merits of having him on the ticket could be very “ify” to say the least. He’s not particularly partisan (although I am certain that he is a quiet Republican in the classic sense) and that could be an advantage. He’s smart and competent. I worked with him slightly and sort of indirectly during the Reagan Admin when he was at CIA and I was at DOD. He was very much onboard with the Reagan strategy towards the Soviet Union. In summary, let”s wait and see. From what I think I know about him, I doubt that he would be interested, but who knows, a lot could happen between now and then. It’s good that you are thinking about this and willing to think broadly.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
If we’re talking about the GOP ticket, Gates would need to repudiate a president who put great trust in him. Don’t see that happening.
Palin will definitely need someone who can reassure on foreign policy. Reagan chose Bush and Palin would go the same route if nominated. Ditto Huckabee and governors like Pawlenty and Huntsman (though all three are longshots). Romney might be able to avoid a foreign policy honcho, but I suspect he would need a Washingtonian (a Kyl or Cornyn type). People continue to ignore Giuliani, but were he to run and win, he also could ignore foreign policy since he’s on top of the issue.
But there’s next to no chance that Gates will be the GOP VP nominee in 2012.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
U.S. Defenseless Secretary
National Security: We “might” shoot down a missile headed toward the U.S. Iran probably can’t build a nuclear weapon. Forget the reinforcements our top general in Afghanistan wants. Is Bob Gates playing defense?
Afghan-Pakistan situation dire; more troops may be needed
Pentagon Wants $3 Billion for Pakistan to Fight Insurgents
The money would include $500 million in an additional war budget request for the coming year that will go to Congress this month