Recommend this article
Well, nuts! If John Bolton had really been planning on running for president, he probably would've jumped into the race far earlier, but I can't pretend I'm not a little disappointed. Not because John Bolton would have had my vote, but for the same simple reason I very much value Ron Paul's presence in the GOP field: they are both earnest individuals who add a lot to the conversation. Specifically, of course, the foreign policy conversation.
John Bolton says he has ruled out a 2012 presidential run. The former United States ambassador to the U.N. told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Tuesday he still believes that national security must be a central issue for the Republican nominee, and so far he has not seen a candidate who has made it a priority.
“It’s a very difficult decision — and my view has not changed one iota that we need a much more robust discussion of national security issues as part of this presidential campaign,” Bolton said. “And I say that not because I have an abstract interest in foreign policy but because the policies that President Obama has been pursuing are extremely harmful to the nation now and into the future. And unless we start talking about them, I don’t think we're going to be able to fix them with a new president."
Exactly. While Ron Paul aptly illustrates the hardcore libertarian foreign policy perspective (Terrorists knocking down our doors? Ron Paul don't care), John Bolton walks the neoconservative line, openly criticizing U.N. impotence and American laxity with aggressors. I am glad that he doesn't take running for president lightly, just jumping into the race higgledy piggledy knowing full well that he will not get elected, but an epic face-to-face Ron Paul vs. John Bolton debate would serve the dual role of presenting worthy arguments on both sides of the foreign policy spectrum, as well as providing priceless entertainment.
Recommend this article
