Now here’s an idea I could get behind from Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist:
One sector of that coalition is the one that includes those who were attracted to what they believed his foreign policy to be — restraint about when and where the United States fights wars coupled with a clear path to victory when we do.
If that is Trump’s position, Guiliani and Bolton would be odd choices, and Paul fleshed out his opposition here. Webb, however, would be a fine pick. Ward observed that many of Webb’s talking points at GWU “match up quite well with objections to Bolton made by Rand Paul today.†They also match up well with things Trump said on his campaign to victory, such as his comment that “NATO expansion has created new environment in terms of how it works…Many new members are clearly protectorates rather than allies.â€
How about State than Defense? I’d’ve preferred Webb over any of the other candidates running for president.
I like Webb too, but I’m not sure he would risk his good name on this administration. If it were me, I’d be very wary.
The GOP clearly thinks they have a mandate here. They won’t go for a Democrat, even someone like Webb. I would also expect it to be someone who has been loyal to Trump.
Steve
That’s a pretty small pool. Very few Republicans practically no Democrats.
I’ve been trying to figure out who Trump could put in foreign policy positions that would make sense and coming up blank. I hope Webb does get asked, and accepts.
Webb was being interviewed on one of the cable channels yesterday on the white working class. It did occur to me Webb might be angling for a position; I kind of agree with steve, I think Trump wants people that supported him, but I believe Webb said he wouldn’t vote for Clinton and never said anything negative about Trump, might be enough.
I’ve just thought of another good pick for Treasury or head of the CEA: John B. Taylor.
He can’t stay on good terms with Putin and Russia by going on the neocon offensive against Iran, so something’s gotta give.