Nunn, Again

I don't know that I qualify as one of those High Broderists that Ed Kilgore references, but I've got to hand it to Ed for (unintentionally) making the best possible case for a Nunn candidacy ...

The overriding rationale of a Nunn run would probably be the argument that Democrats are too allergic to the use of force to be entrusted with national security, while Republicans have proven to be both incompetent and excessively ideological, seriously damaging U.S. credibility. Nunn would be very attractive to neo-realist elites in both parties who think the Bush-style Global War on Terror has been a disaster, but who do not favor a significant retraction in U.S. overseas commitments.

There's something like no part of that that I take issue with - not to mention find admirable - in a potential Nunn candidacy. Well, maybe for the characterization of someone like me as a neo-realist elite. Moi?

Ed's vantage point as a former Nunn staffer is perhaps the most valuable as this rumor stews on the backburner. Like Ed, I'm doubtful that Sam will eventually take the plunge. But by the same token, I've got to think that if Nunn has an impact, it'd be in states that he takes out of the GOP column. Would it be enough to swing Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and/or Virginia our way? I can't say I'd mind finding out.

An added benefit to this still-hypothetical scenario: remember how Ross Perot altered the 1992 landscape to force both campaigns to address fiscal responsibility more directly? I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that Clinton might not have signed off on the first balanced budget or had the political capital to spend on the early deficit reduction bill that set the 90s on a remarkable upward course. Could Perot Nunn possibly have such an effect in dragging both parties back toward a more responsible outlook on the Middle East? Hard to say ... he'd have to overcome my initial question about his expertise first, I suppose.