Nunn for President?

» AJC: Former Sen. Sam Nunn weighs run for White House (Jim Galloway)

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.

Sam Nunn is still considered one of the foremost experts on national security.

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.

"It's a possibility, not a probability," said Nunn, now the head of a nonprofit organization out to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. "My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, 'Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it's not serving us now.'"

First off, it astounds me to realize that Nunn is only 68. He was first elected to the Senate in 1972. By the time he retired, he seemed like a fixture in the place.

That aside, I'll say this ... I've always been somewhat of a fan of Nunn's. But with some awfully big qualifications. I didn't quite go for the Defense Dep't. porkbarrelling that went on in the 80s. I think his call to vote against the first Gulf War was a mistake driven by a combination of partisan interest (his vote gave cover to other Dems to vote similarly) as well as personal (he reportedly wanted to run for President in 1992). His behavior during the John Tower confirmation hearings was another lowpoint.

But Nunn was at least bold enough to put himself up front as an intellectual heavyweight among the conservative southern Dems. There were few better Senators to listen to with regard to foreign policy - even if his vote on the first Gulf War does cast doubt on his understanding of the Middle East, stateless terrorist groups, and 4th generation warfare. My immediate reaction to Nunn's current relevancy is that it's in doubt. Nunn understood the Cold War chess game better than most ... but does he understand the chaotic jujitsu that currently passes for war to a similar degree? Even judging his last - and current - legacy, the Nunn-Lugar legislation that helps eliminate nuclear weapons, thus preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists. It's a state-based solution. And the current method of warfare will not be entirely devoice of state-based actions - Nunn-Lugar is certainly one of the smarter ones out there - but minimizing the threat of stateless actors is something I've not really known Nunn to expound upon very much.

With all that, I have a hard time seeing myself even entertaining the thought of voting for Nunn if he ran. If Hill's the nominee, I'm locked. If Barack is the nominee, I don't have any great problem with him. Hell, the thought of Samantha Power having an imprint on foreign policy is a massive plus in my mind. If it's Edwards & Nunn ... we're already stretching probability here. But maybe - big, huge maybe - would it be an entertainable notion.

Once upon a time, I was among those hoping that a Sam Nunn or Chuck Robb would set the world ablaze with a refined vision of what we onetime Atari Democrats thought would save the world. I got Clinton and neither had nor have a complaint about that era. It just seems somehow disappointing that I don't see it happening if Nunn deludes himself into running this time.