Scott Walker, reckless teenager
by digby
Greg Sargent notes an emerging feud between Bush and Walker:
The Weekly Standard reports that Bush said this to a voter in Nevada:
“One thing that I won’t do is just say, as a candidate, ‘I’m going to tear up the agreement on the first day.’ That’s great, that sounds great but maybe you ought to check in with your allies first, maybe you ought to appoint a secretary of state, maybe secretary of defense, you might want to have your team in place, before you take an act like that.”
That was a shot at [Scott] Walker, who has said he would undo an Iran deal on Day One of his presidency, regardless of what our allies have to say about it. Bush subsequently stood by his remarks, noting that on Day One, he would not yet have had the intelligence briefings required to make an informed decision. Bush added: “If you’re running for president, you know, I think it’s important to be mature and thoughtful about this.”
The Weekly Standard report continues thusly:
At a press conference after his appearance at the Family Leader Summit here Saturday, Walker was asked if he thinks Bush is wrong. “He may have his opinion. I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a cabinet together or an extended period of time,” Walker said.
“I believe they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office. It’s very possible – God forbid, but it’s very possible – that the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military action, on the first day in office. And I don’t want a president who is not prepared to act on day one. So, as far as me, as far as my position, I’m going to be prepared to be president on day one.”
As Sargent explains, this is really not a huge difference in approach. Bush is just trying to establish himself as the mature, tested leader in contrast to Walker the callow, inexperienced rube.
Greg writes:
Jeb’s suggestion that he will approach the situation based on the conditions of the moment (that’s crazy talk!!!) suggests an awareness of something that Walker may or may not share: Undoing the deal in 2017 could have all sorts of unpleasant consequences that haven’t been sufficiently gamed out yet. As one expert put it recently, it could undermine our relationships with allies in ways that could have “a lot of ripple effects around wherever the U.S. and Europe have security cooperation.”
What’s more, vowing to undo the agreement would put pressure on the GOP nominee to articulate his alternative. As Axelrod argues, if Democrats can successfully make the case that the only alternative to the Iran deal is likely to be war, then supporting the agreement may well end up being the majority position in this country. (A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that 56 percent of Americans support the deal, though a large majority is skeptical that it will work, suggesting Americans want to give it a try even if success is far from assured.)
I think they both basically want war with Iran. Jeb hasn't said whether he'd use his "political capital" to launch one, but if he doesn't he'd be the first president Bush not to. They launched one in each of the last two decades. It's a family tradition. Walker is so muddled he doesn't know what he wants or what he's saying. But he's the one bringing up military action so it's fair to assume he'll eagerly muster the troops as soon as possible.
It's hard to know if public support for the deal will hold up or if that support means all that much for its success. From what I can tell this is all about the dynamic in DC, mostly among the Democrats who are being pressured by lobbyists and big donors to vote against it. But this is a presidential election and I have little doubt that the Republicans will be beating the war drum all the way along. And if they win, regardless of whether it's mature Jeb! or teeny-bopper Scott, it seems to me that it's highly unlikely that this deal will stick regardless of what the people say. It's what they do.
.