Former Sen. Sam Nunn weighs run for White House

[onehandle]

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sam Nunn left the U.S. Senate more than 10 years ago. Since then, the Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what's happened to the country, and he's more than a bit ticked — at the "fiasco" in Iraq, a federal budget spinning out of control, the lack of an honest energy policy, and a presidential contest that, he says, seems designed to thwart serious discussion of the looming crises.

In an hourlong interview, in his small office on Marietta Street on the edge of the Georgia Tech campus, Nunn acknowledged that he — like former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich — is considering a run for the White House next year.

But unlike Gingrich, Nunn would run outside the traditional two-party structure.

snip...

The 68-year-old former senator, still considered one of the foremost experts on national security, confirmed that he's discussed a presidential run as part of several conversations with Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor.

Read more: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/18/nunn_0819_1.html

---

Another grand plan to insure a Republican win in 2008.

[kirby]

1. Snore n/t

[One Sweet World]

2. meh

[bluestateguy]

3. Virulently anti-gay

If he's the nominee, I'd suck it up and vote for him, but I wouldn't lift a finger for him in the campaign.

[stressfulreality]

4. how gay n/t

[iamjoy]

5. Uh, He Won't Be *Our* Nominee

he would run outside the two party structure, maybe go for this Unity ticket. Now, a Michael Bloomberg campaign would all but guarantee a Republican victory, especially if Hillary is our nominee.

[jobycom]

8. That's why they're looking at Bloomberg.

The Republicans assume they could beat Obama or Edwards, they are afraid they'll lose to Clinton. I'm sure the supporters of this Unity Party thing believe they are sincere, but I'm just as sure they are being pushed by the Republican Party. The fact that they are trying to run a New Yorker shows their real fear--they want to divide New York. If they run three New Yorkers, and manage to smear Clinton enough within her own party, they think they can shear off enough New York votes to deny Clinton, and that would probably cost her the national election.

Obama they have no fear of, sad to say. They'll use all the racist underground crap they've used on Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ron Kirk, Harold Ford... They are good at it. That will take care of the South (not that all southerners are racist, but the combination of racism, religion, conservatism, and voter suppression should do it). And they'll hammer away at his inexperience for the rest of the nation, since they've seen how he melts down over that issue. They believe (and I hope they are wrong, but they still believe) that Obama is a pushover.

I don't think they believe Edwards has a shot at the nomination.

Hopefully, they are wrong on all counts, and America is smarter than that. If not, hopefully America is broke enough to turn on the Republicans. I've given up on this nation just doing the right thing because it's right. Then again, hopefully I'm wrong about that.

[venable]

13. disagree = the R's think they can beat HRC

they are unsure about Obama

and they know they'd lose to Edwards.

this I get from republican pollster friend (or, let's say: acquaintance).


However, you may be right about Edwards shot at the nomination - unless things change, he's got a steep, steep road, which involves winning both IA and NH. Both.

[jobycom]

23. I know that's the popular opinion around here, but it's wistful thinking.

Look at it logically, from their perspective. She has the highest name recognition, the highest fund raising ability, even with Obama's peak, the most experience at running and winning campaigns, the strongest contacts, and the most experience at debating. She can also sound the most knowledgeable about the White House, having been a top advisor for eight years. Obama has two years national experience, and has won one non-local election, beating a last minute candidate who was barely interested in running.

But if they had their wishes fulfilled, they'd run against Edwards. He's a weak debater, he can't raise funds worth crap, his record on the issues is all over the place, he doesn't even poll well in his home state, he's a rich trial lawyer, and people don't know much about him aside from his name and looks. He lost the last national election he tried, lost in all but one primaries, including the Democratic primary in the state that voted him senator. The only state he did win was the one he was born in--South Carolina.

The typical Republican strategy is to take a candidate's strengths, and turn them into weaknesses, through lies and slanders. They are doing that to Clinton--making her look like an opportunistic moderate, when she's been a dedicated liberal her whole career--they made Kerry look like a war opportunist, when he was a genuine war hero of the highest order, they made Gore look deluded and ego-maniacal, when he is clearly the opposite. With Gore, they went one better, mocking his most impressive achievements so that he couldn't talk about them without invoking their negative talking points--the environment, the Internet, global security, etc.

They like Edwards because they can do anything with him, since he's so unknown, and he's running a lightweight campaign. They have some fear of Obama, because he's black, which makes him hard to attack in the way they like to attack, but he's also inexperienced, and they will be able to run their racist whisper campaigns about him.

On the other hand, they've spent the last fifteen years hitting Clinton with everything they could throw at her (and Bill), from charges of corruption, bribery, perjury, personal deviance, and even murder and drug use. They used government money and the US Congress to attack them. In the end, they never won one battle against either Clinton.

No, your friend is wrong. I don't make this stuff up, I have friends, too, and a little experience. They are sure Clinton will win, and they are sure they can destroy Edwards, and pretty sure they can bring down Obama.

[venable]

33. well, then, your friends disagree with my friends

I'll give you one other example - a guy I know is a close friend of Jeb Bush. this friend of mine is very conservative. he and jeb talk all the time. Jeb told him in 03 that Rove said, privately to Jeb and w, that the only one of the dem primary candidates that scares him (Rove) was Edwards. the guy telling me this loathes Edwards, just so you know it's not what he wanted to be the case.

I heard the same thing from my acquaintance the Republican pollster. She said it back then, and she says it now: the most difficult nominees from the R point of view are, in descending order: Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, Clinton.

Maybe the republican pollsters and operatives are wrong. maybe HRC is the strongest dem. But that is definitely not their opinion at this point.

They do see her as the inevitable nominee, though.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Just because he was anti-gay rights 10 years ago does not mean that he still is

Romney and Kucinich both changed their positions on abortion. Edwards supported the war in Iraq and now is opposed to it.

[jobycom]

9. That's a fair point.

Many liberals, including Gore and Clinton, have progressed on the gay issue from where they were in the past. Gore made some disgusting statements in the 80s, and has obviously changed.

[yardwork]

17. Nunn is not a liberal - never has been. He's a DINO.

[jobycom]

19. I agree, that's what I said below. But the other poster made a fair point.

That others have changed their opinions, so we don't know what Nunn believes now.

Not like I'll vote for him, anyway. :)

[yardwork]

29. I getcha.

[Jacobin]

42. He was against invading Iraq before it started

That's definitely not a dino trait. But I don't know enough about the other issues to say much else

[youngdem]

36. I would NEVER cite Romney's position history when trying to defend someone

That motherfucker invented the flip-flop.

Kucinich too changed his stance on abortion right before he ran.

He opposes it I am sure, and I KNOW Magic Underwear Mitt has always opposed abortion.

[IndianaGreen]

45. The only way a homophobe stops being a homophobe is if he comes out of the closet

The big stink Nunn made about gays in the military, make me think he had unresolved sexual issues.

[rodeodance]

14. Wasn't he the one who had a pic of him inside a submarine sleeping quarters

---close quarters ----then later said NO to gays in military----like being gay was a contagious disease that one catches. I think it was him.

[IndianaGreen]

46. It was aboard a Navy carrier

Nunn was with his lover, John Warner.

[IndianaGreen]

44. I still remember that photo of Nunn and John Warner surrounded by Navy bunks

aboard a carrier with Nunn saying that the closeness of the quarters would make any sailor a target of horny gay sailors. Bleech!

Nunn is an asshole!

[jobycom]

6. Dude's been one of the worst enemies the party has ever had

It would be just like him to run as an independent to help the Republicans get elected.

Just to reming folks how bad this bastard is-- In 92, Clinton promised he would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military if elected. As Commander in Chief, he had the authority to change the ban, since it was only official military policy, not nation law. When in office, he announced he was overturning the ban. Sam Nunn went ballistic, and started demagoging all over the place. "It will destroy moral. The military is not the place for social experiments." bla bla bla. He then announced that if Clinton stuck to his decision, that Nunn would have Congress pass a federal law banning gays in the military and making it a federal crime for gays to join. He had enough southern Democrats and all the Republicans on his side, and clearly had enough votes to override Clinton's veto. It looked as though Nunn would get his law, but Clinton managed to work out a compromise which headed it off. That compromise, the hated "Don't ask, don't tell," is an improvement over what came before, but still a travesty. (Still, it shows what happens when a president thinks that he can just get whatever he wants done--a lesson to Edwards and Obama on why experience and politicing do matter).

I'm sure the Republicans will be pushing this compromise party for all they are worth, just as they pushed Nader in 2000, just as they are pushing the meme that "Hillary is a conservative" now. That's how they win--divide and conquer. That was Lee Atwater's strategy, that was one of Gingrich's GOPAC projects, and that's been Rove's strategy.

Christ, I thought we were done with Nunn. I thought he was older than that. I guess if they can't get him, though, they'll go after Lieberman. Or maybe Lieberman will take Bloomberg's place. Imagine a Lieberman-Nunn ticket.

Now I'll have nightmares. Sorry for the rant. I really dislike Sam Nunn.

[rodeodance]

15. yup, now I am convinced that he was the Submarine guy!

[John1956PA]

10. I agree that he was very wrong with his gays in the military position, but . . .

. . . he struck me as being a highly intelligent and articulate politician. In the debate during the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, he eloquently advocated seeking a peaceful solution, rather than invasion. It could be that he was wrong on that issue, too; however, he presented himself as a man of peace. Sure, he would not stand a chance if he were to throw his hat into the ring, and it would be better if he did not do so. It's just that I wish that his focus on seeking peaceful solutions in international matters would be the path which is followed today.

[MissMillie]

16. I actually see him as a viable VP choice

and have for quite some time. Southerner w/ national security experience.... HELLO!!!!!

[jobycom]

20. I don't remember that. He was AGAINST the first Gulf War?

If so, I'll revise my opinion a bit. Many Dems and some Repubs were in favor of letting sanctions work before invading. Bush, of course, wanted to shake his wimp image, and had economic incentives to invade, so he did everything possible to rush into that war. If Nunn was against it, hats off to him. Do you know if he voted against it, or just wanted to try sanctions first?

Nunn was for school prayer, tort reform, and limiting death row appeals--which are all touchstones with me. He hit every button wrong with me, so maybe I'm more critical of him than he deserves. Not that it matters--if he runs as a non-Democrat, he's the enemy.

[John1956PA]

25. Reading the transcripts don't quite do justice to Sen. Nunn's eloquence opposing the '91 invasion.

Newspapers columnists have opined that Sen. Nunn's opposition against the 1991 Gulf War cost him a shot at the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. (In the 1992 election, Sen. Al Gore - who in January 1991 voted for the invasion - was regarded as being "insulated" from scrutiny regarding hawkish credentials.) Other Democratic senators who in January 1991 joined Sen. Nunn in voting against the invasion were Sen. Wellstone and Sen. John Kerry. A partial transcript of a PBS Frontline documentary which featured excerpts of the January 1991 Senate debate can be found at the following link.



Two quotes which appear in the aforesaid transcript are as follows:

Sen. PAUL WELLSTONE, (D) MINNESOTA: But this is the truth. I could not accept the loss of life of any of our children in the Persian Gulf right now. And that tells me that in my gut, I do not believe that it's time to go to war!

Sen. SAM NUNN, (D) GEORGIA: I see no compelling reason to rush to military action. Of course, there are no guarantees on economic sanctions. There are also no guarantees on war. Where are the guarantees on war?

[jobycom]

30. Thanks for educating me. Hats off to him for that.

Wellstone was long my favorite senator, and Kerry second, and now that I think about it, it probably stems from that era. I was in grad school minoring in Islamic history at the time, and had several friends and a couple of professors from the Middle East. That war was personal to me. I do remember being upset with Gore over his vote, too. That was a clear vote for war, not a compromise to head off war, like the IWR. I can still hear Gore's words: Make no mistake, this is a vote for war. Or something like that.

[DemKR]

11. Dixiecrat maniac

This guy is more conservative than half of the Republicans running. If he runs as an independent, it may stifle away conservative voters. The downside to that however, is that he could also take a bite into the "Reagan Democrats." We'll just have to wait and see.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. I'd sooner vote for Ron Paul. n/t

[sallyseven]

18. I would be dead three days before I would vote fot Nunn.

Or any republican. He is really a republican.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. The 2008 Presidential Election, brought to you by Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey

By all means, let's have it be a ridiculous hodge-podge of silliness with all sorts of people sensing an opportunity. I presume Clark's not going to announce, but who knows? Maybe he's not part of the Hillary camp.

I hope Newt runs; he can pick DeLay as a running mate so they can both seal their historical humiliation.

America's ga-ga over money; let's trot out Bloomberg.

Then there's not-ready Freddy Thompson. Why not another actor?

Sam Nunn wasn't Mr. Charisma even in his prime, and the middle-of-the-road is mighty crowded these days.

Gosh, I didn't even mention Gore...

Bring on the stale popcorn and cold hot-dogs.

[slackmaster]

22. What a shame, the guy must be getting senile

It happens to just about all of us sooner or later.

[aquart]

24. Who's fronting him the money?

[saltpoint]

48. Possibly there's a deal with Bloomberg in the works. They had a power

lunch recently which fueled expectation that Bloomberg would run for prez and someone like Nunn might run as his veep nom.

Now it's beginning to shift toward Nunn.

Either way I don't like it.

Very good question about the bucks.

[Elidor]

26. Perhaps he should warm up with a run for county dogcatcher

He's not going anywhere.

[Maeve]

27. He mis-read the poll that gave top spot to "None of the Above" eom

[JerseygirlCT]

28. I've just been waiting to hear something like this.

Good grief. Just go away Sam. Joey Lieberman has been poaching on your stuff, anyway. Although he could very well come slobbering behind you, hoping for a bone in your administration.

We need Democrats in the WH, Senate and Congress. Period. Sam Nunn hardly qualifies, IMO.

[devilgrrl]

31. I think the plan is to have voters stay home during the election...

I really do. And I must say, they're doing a brilliant job thus so far.

[deadmessengers]

32. I've met him on several occasions

Sen. Nunn sat for many years on the board of directors of the company I worked for, and he remains a close advisor to our CEO. During my time there, I had quite a few opportunities to meet Sen. Nunn, and I have to say, I liked the guy. Some of our other directors were arrogant jackasses, but he was always quite friendly whenever I saw him.

I'm not a huge fan of his politics - the antigay thing is pretty much a deal-killer for me - but I'll just say that he's at least a decent guy. One other thing I'll add - he's an extremely bright guy, unlike the moron we've got in the White House now.

[flaminbats]

39. I know defense is Nunn's big issue..

I certainly have mixed feelings about Sam Nunn. Nunn was an idiot to attack Clinton for allowing gays in the military. This cheap tactic only dishonored so many who already served in the armed forces, while ultimately weakening Nunn's position in Congress. However, I also think only an independent like Perot or Bloomberg can give our two parties the necessary courage to balance the budget or pass universal healthcare.

If Nunn runs for President, he must address every issue from taxes to health care. He can't use voters' fear of terrorism or gay rights to govern successfully. Do you think Nunn would repeal the Bush taxcuts? how far do you think Nunn would go on healthcare reform and would he support federal funding for stem cell research?

[BigDDem]

34. Zell Miller for

Sec of State!

[youngdem]

35. Yup.

He is being recruited to be the next Ralph Nader.

He was always just a Repuke anyway.

[David Zephyr]

37. Good grief! Egomania is becoming a serious sickness in America.

Sam Nunn?! What a loser.

[saltpoint]

38. I'll take Who Gives A Shit for a thousand, Alex.

If Nunn runs as a Democrat I'll struggle to find something pleasant to say about him.

If he bolts our party -- and jst what IS it about Georgia Democrats that bolt from the party ala Zell Millr? -- then I owe him even less than I feel I owe him now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. NO thank you! One of Reagan's biggest enablers

His pushing of Reagan's enormous military budget on the "D" side of the aisle and his support for the right wing in Central America turned me off to him forever.

There were very few points on which he disagreed with Reagan.

[saltpoint]

47. Fully agree. I think that's a perfect read of Nunn's contribution during

the Ronald Reagan years.

Bull's eye.

And thank you.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

41. He'll have nunn of my votes.

[hollowdweller]

43. He was a good man in his day but the scene has changed. We got better now.

I think that we need to go with the most progressive candidate that can still win the general election. Nunn is a good guy but of the old guard. We need new faces.

[Vidar]

49. Just what we don't need.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

50. Probably do as well as Tommy Thompson...n/m