John Bolton: Oh, you’d better believe I’m thinking of running for president

posted at 6:59 pm on September 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, this isn’t the first time he’s hint-hint-hinted that he’s thinking about this, but since the last post about it was received rapturously by commenters, I figured you might be hungry for more. To my surprise, he does sound serious here about running. His earlier conversation with the Daily Caller about a potential candidacy was more coy, which made me believe he was just teasing a bit, but this time he owns right up to considering a campaign. Maybe the response to the previous trial balloon was so enthusiastic that he figured it’s worth floating a bigger one? I’m curious to see what he does next.

The other reason to post this is because it gives me an excuse to link this ominous report about Iran possibly working on yet another secret uranium enrichment facility. (Bolton mentions it briefly in the clip.) The allegation comes from an Iranian dissident group called the National Council of Resistance of Iran; there’s reason to be skeptical, but there’s also reason to think they’re right. They were the ones, after all, who first publicly revealed the existence of the Natanz enrichment facility back in 2002. A U.S. official says that while there’s some sort of construction going on in the area identified by NCRI, there’s no evidence whatsoever that it’s nuclear-related. I sure hope he’s right, because when it comes to bomb-making, it’s not Iran’s nuclear reactors that are important. It’s the enrichment facilities, which are capable of mining explosive U235 from the more benign U238 used for nuclear power. Stay tuned.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Well, well, well…after such loser news all week, enter the Stash.

Bolton just made my evening far nicer than it was a few minutes ago.

Lourdes on September 9, 2010 at 8:45 PM

‘Stache-tastic!

RedMindBlueState on September 9, 2010 at 8:45 PM

He’s not the man we need now, frankly. Our next President will need to be a dedicated and principled domestic policy wonk if we have any chance of avoiding the Big Crash that’s becoming more unavoidable by the day.

Inkblots on September 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM

About this I disagree. Our national deficit HAS become an issue of foreign policy. And we already TRIED that Obama-domestic-policy-genius thing and look how THAT turned out: very, very badly.

Lourdes on September 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM

A note of caution from a libertarian to my conservative friends at Hot Air. You can discount any conservative-libertarian realignment if Bolton wins the nomination. Libertarians will not vote for him. End of Story.

Whether libertarians carry enough votes for conservatives to care is another matter…

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM

If we are really serious about wanting to dismantle the Progressive Government Structure to get back to decent 18th and 19th century principles, then we do need a President who looks like he fits better into those times…

Still Sec. State would be a better fit.

Or put State back under defense, call it the War Department like we used to do when we were honest about things, and put him in charge of that. Give the man the tools he needs, not this lightweight Progressive stuff that we have been stuck with. You want foreign policy to rock? Give it to the War Dept. as those in charge of same actually hate wars: it spoils the troops.

Defense? Bleah. Rushing to defend people. Very Progressive, always wanting things ‘fair’.

War? That is serious stuff, send in the diplomats to get shot at first so they know they suffer the consequences FIRST.

Bolton for the head of the War Dept.

ajacksonian on September 9, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Lourdes on September 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Respectfully, we tried a domestic policy concentrated big-government liberal, which makes it all the more urgent for a domestic policy concentrated small government conservative to be elected next.

And, since our national debt is indeed the number one national security threat facing the nation, he’d automatically be a strong national security president merely by reducing spending and working to retire debt.

Inkblots on September 9, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Hot dog!

Libertarians will not vote for him. End of Story.

Whether libertarians carry enough votes for conservatives to care is another matter…

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Why? Seriously.

shick on September 9, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Sure would liven up the campaign trail and force the whiney weenies to address the issues.
Campaign sticker
John, NO BS, Bolton, Action not talk.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Why? Seriously.

shick on September 9, 2010 at 9:00 PM

There are exceptions to every rule, but the majority of libertarians are most interested in securing more liberty/less government. So, they align with conservatives on domestic issues for the most part but depart from many conservatives with respect to foreign policy and national security.

As a commenter on here previously posted, Bolton approves of Hamilton’s view of an “energetic” executive. An expansive executive at the expense of the powers of the coordinate branches results in more powerful government and less liberty.

Libertarians also depart with many conservatives in that they tend to be noninterventionist. This stems not only from the non-agression principle, but it is axiomatic that perpetual war and the expansion of the national security state reduces domestic liberty. As Madison stated:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

So … Bolton is far too interventionist and enthused about a strong Executive to appeal to the majority of libertarians as a Presidential candidate.

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Christie? Chief of staff of course.

Mojave Mark on September 9, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Oh, Hell yes!!

Maquis on September 9, 2010 at 9:25 PM

A worthwhile VP candidate IMO. No Garret Hobart or William Wheeler, but still…

Greek Fire on September 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM

And, since our national debt is indeed the number one national security threat facing the nation, he’d automatically be a strong national security president merely by reducing spending and working to retire debt.

Inkblots on September 9, 2010 at 8:56 PM

And his Reaganesque military posture would have bad guys giving up the fight even before he was sworn in. Peace through Strength.

When you find a man, or woman, that instinctively knows what’s right, and has the courage to do it, it doesn’t matter where they cut their teeth, they’re qualified to lead this nation.

Obama? Not so much.

Maquis on September 9, 2010 at 9:30 PM

I think he was Pa3ned on a question about President Lincoln’s cabinet on the Commedy Channel. This while every comparison was being made between The One and The Other One “from” Illinois.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/3/02950/93843

I ran into more than one Georgetown liberal who could recite chapter and verse about it.

IlikedAUH2O on September 9, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Bolton could have answered that question better, he clearly isn’t used to scum like Stewart who lay traps and he’ll have to get used to it fast.

Stewart made it sound like Lincoln filled his cabinet with rival Democrats or even slave owners when in fact he filled it with rival Republicans. Bush actually had plenty of disagreement in his cabinet with the Rumsfeld/Cheney wing VS the Colin Powell wing with a little Rice on the side. Stewart as usual is a misleading twat, has he criticized Obama for surrounding himself with chicago machine politicians?

Also, the reason why Lincoln’s cabinet was so great was not because they disagreed with one another, but because they were extraordinary men of character who rose to the occasion when needed, despite all of their personal and political problems that would have brought down weaker men.

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Release the Stache.

simkeith on September 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM

So … Bolton is far too interventionist and enthused about a strong Executive to appeal to the majority of libertarians as a Presidential candidate.

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I’m curious if Bolton were to win the nomination, what would Libertarians do?

Libertarians are barely a blip even on the Republican radar. What are they going to do, vote for Obama? waste their vote on some unknown Libertarian candidate? Stay home and not be heard at all?

Maybe Libertarians will vote for Obama, just like so many did in 2008 because they are so paranoid about social conservatives taking their pot and condoms away from them. I can’t believe how many so called Libertarians I knew who voted for Obama because of their “legalize it!” and “christianist!” hysteria. George W Bush was one of the most religous Presidents ever and he did not insitute the moral dictatorship so many Libertarians have nightmares about. No President has, there was no excuse for the mental lapse that lead them to vote for Obama or against Sarah Palin.

So would Libertarians seriously put the most socialist friendly President in american history back in power because John Bolton is an interventionist? I would they don’t have another mental lapse and realize that any candidate willing to shrink the size of government is good for them. The smaller the government, the less likely a “christianist” or “interventionist” will jeopardize their liberty. If Bolton is willing to cut the size of government, but still be a fiscal hawk, Libertarians would be insane not to vote for him and further marginalize themselves. John Bolton will cut the UN’s influence on America, I thought was something Libertarians cared deeply about?

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I could get very excited about Bolton anywhere on the ticket but I’d really like to see him as Secretary of State in the Palin Administration.

DaMav on September 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Say it 5 times quickly Iranian uranium, Iranian uranium, Iranian uranium, Iranian uranium, Iranian uranium!

Know It All on September 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

If Bolton is willing to cut the size of government, but still be a fiscal hawk, Libertarians would be insane not to vote for him and further marginalize themselves. John Bolton will cut the UN’s influence on America, I thought was something Libertarians cared deeply about?

let me re-write:

If Bolton is willing to cut the size of government, but still be a security hawk, Libertarians would be insane not to vote for him.

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Palin/Bolten

Col. West Chief of Staff.

Condi’s back at State

Where do I put Newt

Whats your dream team.

No more RINO’s

Mitt is no match for any of these real conservatives.

serendip2b on September 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Barf, he’s like Gingrich. He’s looking to make some money. There’s no seriousness to him running OR to him winning.

Scranton on September 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Barf, he’s like Gingrich. He’s looking to make some money. There’s no seriousness to him running OR to him winning.

Scranton on September 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

and you base that on what? He’s been extremely concerned with international affairs for a while now, particularly Iran and the Islamic threat as well as the increasing influence the UN has on American policy with this current administration. When he says he is thinking of running, I am not surprised because he has serious concerns he doesn’t feel are getting any attention.

as for him winning, that depends on the type of campaign he runs, that’s it. If he can tie in the economy and national debt to our national security in addition to the foreign threats he knows plenty about then he’ll be a force to be reckoned with. The Republicans usually give the nomination to “the next guy in line”, in this case that guy would be Mitt Romney. In this political climate, do you really think Romney will be the nominee the way McCain was in 2008? No, it’s going to be a free for all come 2012, we’re going to see dark horses.

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Condi’s back at State

Where do I put Newt

serendip2b on September 9, 201

Condi either got turned into an internationalist squish by State or it released her internationalist tendencies. How she treated Israel soured me on her.

Newt is too compromised by his psychological quirks. He can be an eminense gris in the background, like Rove.

I could see Stache running just to liven up the debates, and then getting picked for VP or State. I like the idea of subsuming State under the War Dept.

YehuditTX on September 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Chris Wallace (Light-heartedly): “One last question about your trip to Russia, Mr. President, when you looked Mr. Putin in the eye, what did you see?”

Bolton (stone faced):”Fear.”

SuperCool on September 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Bolton is no nonsense, I’m on board.

Alden Pyle on September 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM

I would like to remind everyone that:

It’s the economy stupid. And the debt. And the de-socialization of the economy…

What good would focusing on foreign policy right now? I mean that could be done very well by a decent Secretary of State. And all the Pres. has to do is not tie his shoes everytime another world leader comes close.

We have no power in foreign affairs if we do not get the spending and debt under control.

petunia on September 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

John Bolton will cut the UN’s influence on America, I thought was something Libertarians cared deeply about?

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

You’re right about that. But that probably wouldn’t outweigh expansion of national security measures akin to the PATRIOT Act, more monitoring of emails, phone calls, body scanners, bank records, increased government secrecy, a possible intervention with Iran … yadda yadda. Too much Bush baggage for many libertarians.

I don’t think libertarians would vote for Obama (maybe a few but not most), but I’m afraid they’d stay home.

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM

This Libertarian has long ago realized 90% agreement is the absolute ideal one can ever expect. I pray anyone who compares Bolton to Gingrich has clarifying nightmares this evening!

Interventionists are not the problem. Being Unconstitutional Interventionists is. Want to use to use the military to effect change in the World? Declare War and pass it through Congress. Otherwise, your actions are unauthorized…. War Powers Act? Don’t get me started on the War Powers Act.

Sorax on September 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM

POTUS? No.
SoS? Absolutely.

Perhaps VP as well.

Harpazo on September 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM

I’d listen to what it has to say, and would at least consider voting for the stache. Bolton can run for VP.

DFCtomm on September 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM

eminense gris

Um, huh?

I could see Stache running just to liven up the debates, and then getting picked for VP or State. I like the idea of subsuming State under the War Dept.

YehuditTX on September 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Bingo.

ornery_independent on September 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM

At least when Bolten speaks,you know exactly what he says and means!

Secretary of State,YES!!

canopfor on September 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM

The ‘SOTUS!(or ‘stache-in-chief) Now if we can just get Mike Ditka as his running mate….

JavelinaBomb on September 10, 2010 at 12:30 AM

President? No.

Secretary of State? Hell, yes!

AaronGuzman on September 9, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Absolutely! I’m still swooning over the idea of the abject fear and loathing his being SOS will cause the bastages at the UN.

Renwaa on September 10, 2010 at 3:44 AM

He would make a good Vice Presidential pick. Especially for someone like Romney.

Rocks on September 10, 2010 at 4:02 AM

I like Mr. Bolton. I would very likely vote for him if he were to run for national office. But may I remind one and all, the current state of disaster in this country did simply come to pass with The Won or our current crop of Democrat=Marxist=Progressives. It started with Woodrow Wilson and it will take a generation OR MORE to correct. We need to start taking “the long view” of things. Start by seeing to it that your children, and grand-children are properly educated, especially in regard to the nations history.

oldleprechaun on September 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM

I’m more libertarian than Repubican and I can’t think of a better, more serious candidate for POTUS than Bolton. When Bolton speaks, I listen. He’s a serious man and times call for serious thinkers. I hope he runs. I’d support him over all other candidates, including Palin.

SoldiersMom on September 10, 2010 at 7:22 AM

I’d relish watching primary debates involving Bolton and Gingrich. Would be awesome and weighty.
Brian Williams: “As President what would you do to change our national security and defense approaches?

Bolton: “On a strong national security plan I’d implement the following four initiatives….”
Gingrich: “History has shown that a strong military requires a, b & c and as you apply that to current world situation….”
Palin: “You know I just got a twitter from one of my mama grizzlies, an ardent prayer warrior, and she said we need to cut taxes and increase military spending. We could fund it by opening Anwar to drilling…..”
Huckaby: “I brought a guitar and would like to do a rendition of the Battle of New Orleans by Johnny Horton…”
Romney: “You know Brian, I’m not that familiar with the military.. can you elaborate?”
Tancredo: “Eh, I want to bring all the troops home from overseas postings and let the other countries figure it out. We need to model our defense on the Swiss…”

Bradky on September 10, 2010 at 7:24 AM

I think he would make an excellent VPOTUS, with all that diplomatic experience…

If not, then Secretary of State in 2013!!

Khun Joe on September 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Imagine the Obama-Bolton debates, and tell me you don’t relish the thought.

Disturb the Universe on September 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM

We have no power in foreign affairs if we do not get the spending and debt under control.

petunia on September 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Are you serious?

Iran has or will have the bomb under this idiot Administration we’re saddled with now.

What do you think $150 a barrel oil will do to our economy, should Iran shut down the straits of Hormuz?

We need someone who knows what in hell is going on in this world and also someone who has experience in military affairs.

Christie/Bolton 2012.

NoDonkey on September 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Notice how well Bolton deflects the run for presidency question several times in order to discuss what he sees as national security priorities. He is cool and knowledgeable. I would love to see him in the SoS position. He would clean up that swamp of underminers pronto.

onlineanalyst on September 10, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Palin’s sec def.

Kissmygrits on September 10, 2010 at 8:55 AM

I’d like to see Bolton run.

If for no other reason, than to see Liberals emptying their bladders.

franksalterego on September 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM

awesome, a Limbaugh like conservative thinking of running for President, and someone who won’t pull punches on The Current King, er president just because he wants to patronize him or his Alinsky radicalism,

all you jihadists and Islamists better start digging new caves in the Himalayas

mdetlh on September 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM

I get that it can be fun to dream about things like “What if Bolton was President?” or “What if Abraham Lincoln showed up at my doorstep, gave me a hundred million dollars, and then we all went to Great America and there were no lines?”, but let’s not lose perspective. If Bolton’s the 2012 GOP nominee Pres. Obama could ram the Great Leap Forward through and then go to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Veteran’s Day drinking a bottle of whiskey and wipe his butt w/ the constitution and an American flag during a live simulcast on all major networks and he’d still have a better than 50% chance of getting reelected.

Just saying, don’t forget that we constitute the right wing of America, not the median voter.

galenrox on September 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Bolton must have time on his hands, which is a good thing.

Never again will chickenhawk Neo-Cons get their hands on the levers of power in America.

If Bolton wants to kill Arabs so bad, he can always go fight in Afghanistan.

It’s past time for America to be governed with AMERICA’S best interests at heart.

David2.0 on September 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Imagine the Obama-Bolton debates, and tell me you don’t relish the thought.

Disturb the Universe on September 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM

This! Could you imagine the ‘Stache explaining to Obama to his face and the rest of the world how badly Teh One has screwed up and emboldened the enemy. Yes please.

If ‘Stache runs I just might have to surrender my Top Secret Palinista Decoder Ring.

bitsy on September 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

So … Bolton is far too interventionist and enthused about a strong Executive to appeal to the majority of libertarians as a Presidential candidate.

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

shick on September 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM

You betcha! Sorry AP, stole your Sarah punchline.

Fuquay Steve on September 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

An omen?

Liberals hate this guy and see him as anti-matter against Hillary. In their inestimable knee jerk way, of course.

I think that they are both pretty bright. And that alone would be a nice break from recent history.

IlikedAUH2O on September 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM

“It’s past time for America to be governed with AMERICA’S best interests at heart.”

That’s what we have now. How come it ain’t workin’?

Really Right on September 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM

He may be working on his Secretary of State appointment.

motionview on September 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Bolton as SoS. Immediately Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Kim Jong Ill would retire quietly into their corners and sit politely with their hands folded in their laps, not daring to say a word.

Trafalgar on September 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

I am so onboard with this one! This news has made me positively giddy!!!

Queen0fCups on September 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Libertarians will not vote for him. End of Story.

Good grief -then they’ll be voting for Obama and libertarianism will be sent to the trash heaps of history.

Don L on September 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

don’t forget that we constitute the right wing of America, not the median voter.

Right, so let’s all give up our principles, change our philosphy to neutral, and move to the middle. That’s sure help America.

Compromise on principle is a gift to the enemies of principle.

Don L on September 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM

John Bolton / Allen West 2012. Ah… if only…

And those saying “Condi back at State” clearly didn’t read Bolton’s book.

Sayan Neviot on September 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

John Bolton is the inspiration for this guy.

mizflame98 on September 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

… as long as we’re dreaming, Karl Denninger as Secretary of the Treasury…

Jonas Parker on September 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Git ‘r dun!

CynicalOptimist on September 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Stache/Fat Man ’12

Harry S on September 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Hard to picture Bolton doing a ‘world apology tour’. (Thank God)

Harry S on September 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Don L on September 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Ah yes, because anyone who’d win more than 2 states requires complete submission to the horrors of, GASP, moderation.

There are actual problems that need to be solved, and like it or not, we do represent the right wing. Our options are:
1) Sit in a corner congratulating each other for our purity of principle while we lose any influence over events (not unlike the left wing over the last year and a half).
2) Get things done by working with people who are to our left, building on areas of common ground.
3) Burn the Constitution and appoint Jim DeMint king.

Bolton won’t be President. You never know with primaries, but even with Obama as unpopular as he’ll inevitably be in 2012 he’d win 49 states without breaking a sweat. You can choose to go as far out of your way to get someone the American people dislike more than President Obama, but generally meaningless petulance is ill-advised.

galenrox on September 10, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I’d vote, work for, donate big money to Bolton for President.
But I don’t think enough of America, even after the painful lessons of the past decade, are ready for a sane, unvarnished truth teller in any political position.

75% of our population (including half of ‘em on ‘our’ side) still want to be lied to, told that all will be well, that government will save you, that islam is really a religion of peace, that if you apologize enough and weaken yourself, that the rest of the world will love you.

LegendHasIt on September 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM

because when it comes to bomb-making, it’s not Iran’s nuclear reactors that are important. It’s the enrichment facilities, which are capable of mining explosive U235 from the more benign U238 used for nuclear power.

Sorry AP, but you are wrong. They are BOTH important. The reactor can be used to make Plutonium from even low enriched uranium because the U238 left in the fuel is bombarded with neutrons and converts to Plutonium 239 and 240. How do you think the Norks are doing this?

The Iranians currently have more than enough low enriched uranium to fuel a reactor, and in 9 months to a year of reactor operation will have been able to convert enough of it into enough plutonium for a bomb.

Rorschach on September 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM

eminense gris

Um, huh?

Gray Eminence, as in Old Sage.

Maquis on September 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM

______ vs. Obama or Hillary for prez
Considering I have said I’d vote for Bullwinkle the Moose before voting for Obama, you could put almost any name in the blank and I’d vote for that person.

Bolton? He is seriously smart, seriously experienced, and seriously serious, not a cartoon like we have now. I would happily vote for him.

jodetoad on September 10, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I like Bolton a lot, but he won’t get the nomination unless he loses the the stash, and changes the hair style. I know it’s sallow, but he doesn’t look presidential.

sophiesmom on September 10, 2010 at 9:26 PM

As long as he is doing a mix of Heritage and CATO for domestic economic policy, I’ll support him.

Tim Burton on September 13, 2010 at 12:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2