War over the Wonks: Advisors to Presidential Candidates

[tequila]

Washington Post list of foreign policy advisors to prominent Dem and Repub candidates. Some interesting names. Good to know when we read future op-eds exactly who is primping for who.

[bourbon]

Rep. Ron Paul

* Not authoritative.

Every Thursday, Paul is the host of a luncheon for a circle of conservative Republicans that he calls the Liberty Caucus. It has become the epicenter of antiwar Republicanism in Washington. One stalwart member is Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who during the debate over Iraq suggested renaming French fries “freedom fries” in the House dining room, but who has passed the years since in vocal opposition to the war. Another is John (Jimmy) Duncan of Tennessee, the only Republican besides Paul who voted against the war and remains in the House. Other regulars include Virgil Goode of Virginia, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Scott Garrett of New Jersey. Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Jeff Flake, the Arizonan scourge of pork-barrel spending, visit occasionally. Not all are antiwar, but many of the speakers Paul invites are: the former C.I.A. analyst Michael Scheuer, the intelligence-world journalist James Bamford and such disillusioned United States Army officers as William Odom, Gregory Newbold and Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s former chief of staff), among others.

- Christopher Caldwell, "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul", NYT Magazine, July 22, 2007.

[Old Eagle]

Looks like Obama is set if he needs the uniforms of his campaigners redesigned. McPeak is an expert.

Also looks as if McCain has all the Iowa vet advice anyone could possibly use.

[Steve Blair]

Looks like Obama is set if he needs the uniforms of his campaigners redesigned. McPeak is an expert.

So is Mosley.

[SteveMetz]

Rep. Ron Paul

* Not authoritative.

I'm glad to see that General Newbold got promoted to being a former Army officer.

[Tom Odom]

I especially liked the indepth stable of military/national security experts Major Rudy has lined up: none.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

I especially liked the indepth stable of military/national security experts Major Rudy has lined up: none.

Tom

I define myself as a badly disgruntled moderate Republican who is undecided in this race. When I saw Norman Podhoretz on the list, I knew I could not support Giuliani.

[goesh]

I'll vote for any man or woman who will simply send the FBI into the Paki frontier with warrants and arrest Bin Laden. Global terrorism is after all a simple matter of law and order..right? The threat of American Jurisprudence has most impoverished, misguided Islamic youth, who the racist Bush calls terrorists, on the run already. If you were such a youth, wouldn't you dread the thought of spending 10-20 years in a climate controled cell with your Quran and prayer rug, access to a mosque, full and free legal represenstation, halal food, conjugal visits, good excercise equipment, a fully stocked library and law library, opportunities for education, color tv, videos, stero, radios, a commissary, complete medical and dental care, low rent housing, free medical care and food stamps for your family? It's about over what with that kind of potential retribution hanging over their poor heads - all that needs to be done is establish Dem control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I might even run for Prez myself using the Dem platform on terrorism as my own.

[Killer of Giants]

Two groups struck me as unusual:

John Edwards's military folks have a high percentage of loggies and light on real fighters.

Hillary seems to have a good list -- they got us into enough trouble, maybe they can get us out of some

[bourbon]

I'll vote for any man or woman who will simply send the FBI into the Paki frontier with warrants and arrest Bin Laden. Global terrorism is after all a simple matter of law and order..right? The threat of American Jurisprudence has most impoverished, misguided Islamic youth, who the racist Bush calls terrorists, on the run already. If you were such a youth, wouldn't you dread the thought of spending 10-20 years in a climate controled cell with your Quran and prayer rug, access to a mosque, full and free legal represenstation, halal food, conjugal visits, good excercise equipment, a fully stocked library and law library, opportunities for education, color tv, videos, stero, radios, a commissary, complete medical and dental care, low rent housing, free medical care and food stamps for your family? It's about over what with that kind of potential retribution hanging over their poor heads - all that needs to be done is establish Dem control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I might even run for Prez myself using the Dem platform on terrorism as my own.

I am sorry, but you make it sound as if there is much difference between the leading candidates on either side. You lampoon the law enforcement centric approach that you ascribe to the democrats, even though Sen. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness, if not desire to escalate things with Iran, and Sen. Obama has spoken publicly endorsing air strikes in Pakistan. The law and order approach you deride on a micro policy level, is remarkably similar to the macro level “Team America: World Police” policies executed by this administration. Regime change of “bad guys” in order to pursue an ideological quest of remaking the region, nation building, binary vision, these are equally as naive as the ones you ascribe to the dems.

Further the United States is a conservative political culture in that politics that radically deviate from the status quo are not welcome. In congress, we have only one socialist on the left, and Ron Paul may very well be the only actual conservative in the building. Campaign spending this election, like last, will eclipse $1 billion, and the candidates of both parties will have to kiss-the-ring of a myriad of interest groups. We should stop kidding ourselves that there is much of a difference between the two parties.

[Watcher In The Middle]

I especially liked the indepth stable of military/national security experts Major Rudy has lined up: none.

Very interesting point. In fact, Rudy (by comparison) has by far the most local/state government people on his "team" - virtually to exclusion. Not sure what it means "politically", but I do find that to be extremely interesting - if elected, could lead to a much different approach on many different things. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I have some thoughts on Obama's list of advisers, because with some of his comments in the national security area, either he didn't take their advice, or if he did, it was framed terribly poorly for public consumption, or there's some really serious coordination failures going on between his campaign staff and his national security "experts".

[tequila]

Giuliani adds to his list.

Dr. Ruth Wedgwood, Adm. Robert Natter, John Agresto, Major Owen West, Kori Schake, Thomas Joscelyn, David Frum, Michael Rubin.

[bourbon]

Foreign Policy Advisory Index, by The National Interest, 12.27.2007.

[marden]

I am sorry, but you make it sound as if there is much difference between the leading candidates on either side. You lampoon the law enforcement centric approach that you ascribe to the democrats, even though Sen. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness, if not desire to escalate things with Iran, and Sen. Obama has spoken publicly endorsing air strikes in Pakistan. The law and order approach you deride on a micro policy level, is remarkably similar to the macro level “Team America: World Police” policies executed by this administration. Regime change of “bad guys” in order to pursue an ideological quest of remaking the region, nation building, binary vision, these are equally as naive as the ones you ascribe to the dems.

Further the United States is a conservative political culture in that politics that radically deviate from the status quo are not welcome. In congress, we have only one socialist on the left, and Ron Paul may very well be the only actual conservative in the building. Campaign spending this election, like last, will eclipse $1 billion, and the candidates of both parties will have to kiss-the-ring of a myriad of interest groups. We should stop kidding ourselves that there is much of a difference between the two parties.

I have suspicions about Ron Paul's tolerance level for bigots. I suspect he rather likes them.

I am certain he doesn't understand Islamic Jihad.

And I was hoping someone here might have already run a thread describing how Paul's proposed Fortress America would work.

I am absolutely certain he would be the worst possible President.

Although there is little doubt he will not win the Presidency by any stretch of the imagination.

But having said that, I ask you how you could possibly expect anyone with an understanding of foreign affairs to vote for Paul?

On the unofficial list of advisers you posted was Michael Scheuer. No doubt an honorable man and a dedicated public servant. But he doesn't "get" Jihad, either.

[tequila]

Some additional detail on the Obama team. The article spends most of its time reflecting on whether Obama would be good for Israel, reflecting the core concern of the NY SUN, but there are some names I didn't know about before.

[SteveMetz]

Some additional detail on the Obama team. The article spends most of its time reflecting on whether Obama would be good for Israel, reflecting the core concern of the NY SUN, but there are some names I didn't know about before.

"The Obama campaign has declined to release the names of all the participants, saying that some of them are volunteering their time while serving in jobs at government agencies..."

Hmm

[waterboy]

This is about a week old but I read it on the road and thought it served as a good primer on who McCain will be influenced by in the future on foreign policy (from the civilian side) should he become president.

I am of the opinion that neoconservative foreign policy views are based on a fundamentally flawed ideology and their inclusion in the debate will only cause further harm to US foreign policy interests.

As the article states, it is still unclear who holds the most sway within the presumptive nominee's camp but I think the outcome of this struggle could be critical for the future of US policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us...qduBCrULHRVgUw