But can Scott Walker see Russia from his house?

By Richard Barry

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would make his intentions known in June about a presidential run. 

Walker said he believes, if he were to run, he’d have strong foreign policy experience, given his work on trade issues in his state, as well as his travel to China, Japan, Germany, France, Spain and Great Britain.

On defense issues, Walker said, his leadership experience would be a strong asset.

 [. . .]

“I gotta tell you, one of the areas people talk to me the most about is the safety and security of this country,” he said. “If I choose to get into this race, I’m going to lay out a very clear plan.”

I recognize that Scott Walker wouldn't be the first presidential contender without much real foreign policy experience. I also realize that a candidate has got to make the best of what they have to offer. But no, dealing with a few trade issues in Wisconsin, some trips abroad, and "leadership experience" focused on staring down public sector unions doesn't cut it. 

It's particularly pathetic considering he would likely be running against a well-respected former Secretary of State (and he can say Benghazi all he wants). 

If Republicans do intend to make 2016 a foreign policy election by arguing that Clinton's tenure at State was problematic, they might want to offer up a candidate who is actually in position to say something intelligent about foreign affairs.

Republicans are still fighting the last campaign

By Richard K. Barry

We've seen time and again the Republicans fighting the last campaign in their attacks on President Obama. We know that a part of their strategy is to suggest Obama is still not experienced enough to do the job he has been doing for the past four years, as odd as that sounds.

In the clip below Paul Ryan argues that he has more experience with foreign policy than Barack Obama had when he came into office because Ryan sent people to war as a member of Congress.

I'm even willing to cede that point, but what is the point? Barack Obama has been president for almost four years and, whether you like or dislike his foreign policy, he's been doing the job. Ryan's votes in Congress are hardly proof of deep foreign policy bona fides. Presumably with Ryan's mumbled comments about Obama's lack of experience four years ago, we are supposed to believe that the intervening years haven't mattered. But that's not credible.

Another point worth making is that Ryan doesn't strike me as very good in the national media spotlight. That surprises me a little bit given how so many in the media have been quick to sing his praises as a "serious" voice. It's just my impression but Ryan looks kind of small and out of his depth in the speeches and interviews I've seen so far.

Whatever experience Paul Ryan has had hasn't really prepared him for the job he is seeking. Of course, I could say the same of Mitt Romney.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)