The origins of Neocon Foreign Policy

I'm looking forward to the neocon summary, since I consider myself a neocon in the tradition of John Podhoretz's dad (Norman). I would very much hope you'll join the Palin bandwagon (a small bandwagon now but growing steadily). I've written a column today (Monday) discussing your comments on Sanity re: Sarah and foreign policy experience.

On the presidential nominee choosing his V-P running mate, you're right in principle. However, as my recent column on Republican V-P choices over the past 50 years have been exquisitely awful. I went through all of them and explained why they were awful (Nixon, Agnew, Quayle, and a bunch of no-names). Cheney is a good man, but he has tiny base of support. The V-P has to be a terrific communicator, and Cheney is not.

Wil, I believe a President (or someone who runs for the office) must be involved in a continuing, candid dialogue with the American people. That's rarely happened, but I believe it will more often.

steve

Welcome back to blogging!

2000-2008: Cheney:
Logic of Choice: Experienced support of the President who was a neophyte nationally.
Strengths: Experience, name recognition within party hierarchy
Weaknesses: Communication, seen as insider, age
Result: I think Cheney has been an excellent voice of experience during th crisis following 9/11. I think his toughness and grit were a valuable counterweight to Bushs "Compassion"

1992-2000: Gore:
Logic of Choice: National experience, well known name, known for issues such as environmentalism (appeal to the base)
Strengths: umm....
Weaknesses: Woodenness (seemed fake),
Result: Clinton was such a powerful personality, I think Gore ended up far more obscure than either of them expected in 1992. Not really much impact.

1988-1992 Quayle:
Logic of Choice: Rust belt state, successful as Senator, young and attractive, shored up Bush with Christian base who were dubious.
Strengths: Family and moral stances brought out "Moral Majority" voters who were not too enthused about Bush
Weaknesses: Unable to respond effectively to media criticism, committed notable but exaggerated gaffes.
Result: Some think Quayles gaffes cost Bush in 92. It was more Bush raising taxes and showing disdain for his base, coupled with a recession and the Perot candidacy. Quayle was not as intellectually inferior as people think. I read his book Standing Firm and some of his Senate and VP speeches. He was characterized as something he is not.

1980-1988: Bush:
Logic of Choice: This was a reach out to the old party powers. They did not like or trust Reagan, and he gave this post to one of their men. In that respect, it worked well. The party unified behind him, and by 84, there was no doubt.
Strengths: Foreign policy (CIA) experience, brought credability internationally.
Weaknesses: None that stood out as a VP. Perhaps a bit colorless.
Result: Almost any VP would have done fine because the President was such a powerful figure.

1976-1980: Mondale
1975-1976: Dole
1973-1975: Ford
1968-1973: Agnew

I could go on, but the point is, each VP candidate had a purpose and a role, and for the most part, each fulfilled it in the shadows. None of these (except Agnew) were exceptionally bad, and for the most part, they fulfilled their role in the shadows, as a VP is supposed to. Probably the most colorful VP in history was TR, and he overshadowed McKinley who in my opinion was a great President.

I will read your column, but to consider pushing for a VP, I need to see specifics from her, and so far, I haven't.