Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Gun Laws=Good, Gun Law Enforcement=Bad | Main | Now Romney Is Carcinogenic »

August 07, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20167691f846e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Petraeus For VP?:

Comments

AliceH

I posted this on the prior thread, but it seems to fit here better:

I don't need to be sold on Petraeus' intelligence, loyalty, patriotism. I nonetheless do not see him in political office as a Vice President. I'd rather he "came out" with his own positions on numerous domestic and foreign issues before being put in another role of supporting the policies and positions of the guy he reports to. He may well believe all the same things I do, or Mitt does, or you do ... but we won't know that if he just goes from serving at the pleasure of this president to that president.

jimmyk

I would think Mitt would vet Petraeus's political positions before selecting him, but I agree it would be a risky choice anyway, since it's one thing to hold a position, quite another to articulate it in a way that appeals to voters and doesn't leave you vulnerable to attack by Obama and the MSM. That ability is tough to vet.

Sara

I think Romney is committed dullness with VP pick; Romney's basic plan is to keep the spotlight on Obama, who will continue to shrink and wither under the bright lights. Petraeus does not advance that plan.

I don't agree at all with the first part of this sentence. I do agree that Romney wants to keep the spotlight on Obama's incompetence with the economy (his job) and with his military strategy and who better to advance that meme than Petraeus.

via Wiki:

Petraeus has a B.S. degree from the United States Military Academy from which he graduated in 1974 as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class). He was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College class of 1983.[5] He subsequently earned an M.P.A. in 1985 and a Ph.D. degree in International Relations in 1987 from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.[6]
NK

Porch/Sara/Matt-- on the prior thread make compelling cases for Petraeus -- I would urge them to repost here. IF,IF he's interested, I think Petraeus does help improve Romney's odds of winning. Mitt will campaign on the economy, jobs,deficit constantly -- that's his winning play. But 'Bam will constantly try to distract from his disaterous economic record. His biggest distraction will be by saying 'Romney's dangerous and he'll get us into a NEW war'- 'Bam has kept us out of NEW wars.' Bam will get all of the foreign policy 'establishment' types, including Colin Powell to say that about Romney. A Petraeus VP is an immediate and crushing rebuttal.

dublindave

Sigh.

James D.

NK, I agree with you. But isn't it just mind-blowing to think that Zero could with a straight face say he "kept us out of new wars" and the MSM would go along with it...after he single-handedly involved us in a civil war in Libya without Congressional approval or even notice?

MarkO

Snipe hunting.

Extraneus

I like this Moe Lane idea that Obama hates Romney because Romney had a loving father. How do they defend against that if it starts getting any traction?

centralcal

I am wondering (aloud), but - Romney just recently returned from meeting with Israelis and Bibi, the far off sound of war drums seem to be getting stronger (October?) and in the blink of an eye or a well placed bomb, attention could be focused on Iran.

Maybe floating Petraeus isn't as crazy as it might seem?

NK

TomM-- Petraeus and politics? You forget your history my good man. The Dems won the House and Senate in 2006 because of Repub incompetence in Congress, but primarily because the voters grew tired of the Iraqi insurgency and the cost in American lives. In 2007 Petraeus was Bush's ambassador to a hostile Congress and media to deliver the Petraeus Report and get the Surge funded-- Petraeus won in Congress and then on the battlefield. By 209 he had even tamed the HildaBeat of 'suspend disbelief' fame. He's a proven political winner.

Sara

Reposted from other thread:

I have been saying for 2 years that Romney needs someone as VP who brings both military cred and military experience, because this is Romney's weakest area. Petraeus fits perfectly, plus his own personal resume is stellar. I like West very much too, but he is a loose cannon and he also has some very big negatives from a campaign perspective (not in my book, but...).

The idea that taking the CIA job was changing sides is silly. I know the CIA has been infested on and off over the years, but it really is and should be a non-partisan agency.

Posted by: Sara | August 07, 2012 at 03:33 PM

AliceH

I'm not convinced. It's fortunate, then, that I don't need to be.

NK

JamesD-- 'Bam will campaign as a World Leader, who keeps us out of 'unnecessary wars' but kills the bad guys and keeps us safe. BOOK IT. That's all he's got to say- he can't say anything about the economy (anything that works). He'll say Romney's a nut job NeoCon-- Americans don't want to go back to that. That could put Romney on the defense to claim I'm no nut. Romney will need a clean comeback-- Petraeus would fit that bill very nicely IMO.

matt

one of my favorite writers of any kind died yesterday. Robert Hughes, R.I.P.. A bit of a eulogy LUN.

James D.

NK, I agree - that's what Zero will say, however at variance with reality it is.

My point is just that if we had a press corps that was even only 95% in the tank for Zero and the dems instead of 100%, he wouldn't be allowed to get away with saying it.

Sara

NK: I agree that Obama will use anything he can against Romney, but there isn't a whole lot to use. Romney runs rings around Obama brain-wise, business-wise, personal character, but the one area Romney has no counter to is his lack of military service and the charge that you can't send Americans off to war when you know not what you are sending them in to. Petraeus is the perfect counter to that.

Plus, Romney knows the international business world and is expert in strategic business planning and Petraeus brings the other side of that coin with strategic planning and national security.

Win-Win as far as I'm concerned.

To even use David Petraeus and Wesley Clark in the same sentence is an insult. Clark was a disgraced general who failed at his job. Petraeus has shown brilliance in his jobs.

Appalled

NK

I just don't think a foreign policy play gets any votes for Mitt. Voters are making their decision on the economy. Obama pulling out of Iraq and Osama's death are " gee that's nice, but what have you done for me lately."

NK

OT-- 70 years ago today, the USN/USMC launched Operation Watchtower, the amphib landing at Guadalcanal/Tulagi in the Solomon Islands. Guadalcanal was the turning point of the Pacific war-- it was the USN/USMC's baptism of fire in learning to fight and beat the Japanese Empire. Too many American ships and men died in that 6 month campaign-- but their loss was not in vain-- the roadmap to victory was printed at Guadalcanal. Excellent summary at WS in link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/forgotten-victory_649491.html?page=3

NK

JamesD-- got it-- but the reality is the Legacy Media are 100% in the tank for Bam and they will cover for him no matter what he claims.

James D.

the one area Romney has no counter to is his lack of military service and the charge that you can't send Americans off to war when you know not what you are sending them in to

Speaking of charges that, with a press corps that was even vaguely honest, Zero would never be allowed to make, especially considering his resume and his opponent in 2008...

Porchlight

Agree with Sara that Romney really needs someone with military/foreign policy creds, for governance if not for the campaign. Scary times ahead, even if the national focus is currently on domestic politics.

I don't know if Petraeus is really in the running, or if he wants to be. My gut says he's an unlikely pick. And I am not certain of his views. But he's a mensch and it's hard to deny he would bring a lot to the ticket. IMO of course.

Sara

I just don't think a foreign policy play gets any votes for Mitt.

Maybe not to you, but it is very important to a very large voting block. We already know that Mitt is the better man for the economy than Obama, we already know that the whole world is laughing at us because of Obama, but there are enough on the fence who aren't sure that Romney will bring back the respect internationally. Our undereducated and uninformed cheerleader press corps will do everything the can to make Romney look even worse than Obama on that score. Just look at his recent trip and how they turned very astute and perfectly legitimate observations into there idea of major gaffes.

AliceH

--Petraeus was Bush's ambassador to a hostile Congress and media to deliver the Petraeus Report and get the Surge funded-- Petraeus won in Congress--

I'm not sure you can call that a political 'win' for Petraeus - he was following orders in the best way he could, but it was Bush's political capital being spent.

Threadkiller

Is anybody paying attention to Blago?

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/blagojevich-appeal-delayed-waiting-on-transcripts-court-clerk-5-12-month-leave-of-absence-delays-help-obama-transcripts-of-blagojevich-wiretaps-hurt-obama/

The transcripts won't be ready to hammer Obama, how convenient.

My favorite:

DATE: 11/07/2008TIME: 4:11 P.M. ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.SESSION: 403, 405, 406 and 408 Speakers:BLAGOJEVICH: Rod BlagojevichYANG: Fred YangHARRIS: John Harris STEWART: Mary Stewart

BLAGOJEVICH So he thought it through, you know, and he’s a little con-, concerned with, you know, well, maybe not right away and I say, “well, look, because, because of the Rezko stuff, Tom? Is that what you think?” And, well, he didn’t want directly say it so I talked about the Rezko stuff.

(gap)

BLAGOJEVICH That Barack would quote unquote, he wants to get away from Illinois politics. To me that’s a euphemism for Rezko.

YANG Right.

BLAGOJEVICH Okay?

YANG Well, and, and also, governor, he went with Rahm as chief of staff.

BLAGOJEVICH Correct.

YANG That’s another Illinois guy.

BLAGOJEVICH Correct. So Illinois politics to me is, and Axelrod, is more Rezko.

(gap)

BLAGOJEVICH … Now, you know I’m under, you know, what I believe is disgusting federal investigations, with them out to get me and I, I’ve been nothin’ but fuckin’ tryin’ to be very honest in my administration. You know made some misjudgements, but compared to even Obama, you know, I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.

Sara

Speaking of charges that, with a press corps that was even vaguely honest, Zero would never be allowed to make, especially considering his resume and his opponent in 2008...

Exactly. However, mark my words, they will twist it now to say that maybe Obama didn't have any experience then but quick look over there, he got OBL. In other words, he now knows better than Romney. I don't happen to agree, but that's what they'll do.

Of all the appointments that Romney can make, I think the selection of the VP is the least important of all.

I would rather spend my time filling in the Cabinet. Who will he tap for SoS, DoD, Treasury, etc.

I have a feeling that many of the names that end up being household words in a couple of years after Romney becomes president are not household names now. I think he'll draw from the best and brightest and not from the celebrity political class.

Captain Hate

I'm not sure you can call that a political 'win' for Petraeus

I'm not either; particularly how the glacier in pantsuits and the Indonesian were leading the MoveOn troops against General Betray-Us and it didn't cost them a damn thing politically.

Btw, can anybody come up with a member of a previous administration who subsequently ran against that administration?

NK

AliceH-- I disagree, GWB had no political capital left regarding Iraq in 2007. It was all gone by the time Rumsfeld resigned and the Repubs lost both the House and Senate. Petraeus WAS GWB's Iraq political capital in 2007-- the Dem foreign policy establishment said he was legitimate to report on Iraq, and the Dems were shocked when Petraeus backed Bush's surge. GWB was politically courageous to never back down on iraq because he was right, and most 3-4 Star Generals were wrong about the Surge and were ready to bolt to satisfy their new masters in Congress. But Petraeus got it done.

C.R.

Appalled - a foreign policy pick will gain plenty of votes for Romney if Israel takes action before the election. Speaking of which, won't they have to if there is any chance of Obama's reelection?

That being said, I tend to agree that this is a story from the White House designed to make the actual pick seem anticlimactic and boring.

Captain Hate

That being said, I tend to agree that this is a story from the White House designed to make the actual pick seem anticlimactic and boring.

Yes.

NK

Actually I think the 'story' is mostly Drudge being Drudge.

AliceH

Let's say all that is true, NK. It's still a stretch to call a prosecutor who wins one case before a surly jury a great politician - it's a matter of effective presentation of an argument bolstered by evidence. Petraeus had a difficult sales mission, one he also was committed to, and he fulfilled it - that's commendable. It's not politics. That is a much longer game with a lot more moving pieces than one up or down vote.

Jane (A dog in the crate is better than one on the plate)

If Obama said it, it's either woefully uninformed or a lie.

marlene

Sara@4:16...I was just going to post a comment about NH Senator Kelly Ayotte.She was NH's AG and has been a staunch Romney surrogate.I believe she's been on some VP short lists,but look at her as Romney's possible Attorney General choice. She's not a household name,but she's been a tireless campaigner and they seem to have good rapport.

Thomas Collins

If Team Mitt really is seriously considering the General, it means that Team Mitt thinks the election is going to be razor tight, or even that the Mystery Man has a current edge in the Electoral College. This would be a gamble (albeit no doubt a well thought out one). Selling the public on the Iraqi surge is a differnt matter from being in the campaign spotlight for the first time. On the Wesley Clark/Ike continuum, the General is most likely a lot closer to Ike, but one never knows.

NK

I don't claim that winning the political battle for the Surge and then winning the Surge on the battlefield makes Petraeus Winston Churchill or Abe Lincoln, but what have Bob Portman or even Paul Ryan done that make them accomplished political winners, and therefore 'safe' choices?

Thomas Collins

Perhaps it's just Team Mitt's special ops squad intentionally leaking something to Axelmessplouffe to throw it off balance.

Ignatz

--Maybe he is the next Wesley Clark...--

Fortunately Petraeus is a public figure otherwise I'm pretty sure TM would be looking down the barrel of a hefty and well earned defamation suit. :)

AliceH

--what have Bob Portman or even Paul Ryan done that make them accomplished political winners--

The first thing that springs to mind is that they got elected.

bgates

a member of a previous administration who subsequently ran against that administration

McClellan?

The last General the Republicans put into office was Dwight David "90% tax rates and a bipartisan seal of approval for the New Deal" Eisenhower. The last General the Republicans thought about putting into office was Colin Powell. The last dutiful, honorable fighting veteran we tried to put into office was John McCain.

NK

TC-- this WILL be a close POTUS election, they all are except for the incompetent McCain campaign coupled with the housing collapse. To win Romney will need MORE VOTES than GWB got in 2004 as an incumbent. damn right this will be a close run thing. Romney will win, but only a few mistakes margin for error.

NK

AH-- good point about Portman winning Ohio. But I asked CH about that, and if I remember correctly, he didn't think Portman was a big help in Ohio.

lyle

The last dutiful, honorable fighting veteran we tried to put into office was John McCain.

All fair qualifiers. So is "media whore."

Rick Ballard

"but what have Bob Portman or even Paul Ryan done that make them accomplished political winners"

Portman has won a helluva lot more political campaigns than Governor Romney has - including a statewide contest in Ohio where he took 82 out of 88 counties. Petraeus has no proven electoral political ability whatsoever.

49erDweet

This was Obobo being Obobo. No knock on Petraeus, but he's done nothing to earn the VP post and IMO it would be an epic MittFail if his nomination were to come to pass.

I do want to see him talk about his potential cabinet - shows a sense of confidence - but no need to pick a VP until the convention, and then make it someone who will cause the progs' heads to explode. That was the only thing McCain got right.

Sue

49erDweet,

I was with you until "someone who will cause the progs' heads to explode". Romney isn't going to pick someone that will fire up the base. He is hoping the anti-Obama sentiments will fire up the base. He is looking for someone that will not take the message off of the economy. Portman.

Ranger

Just a couple of observations.

Anyone who serves at the rank of O5 or above on active duty knows the art of politics very well. Don't forget that Petraeus had to get the concept of the Surge past a very hostial Pentagon just for the chance to pitch is to GWB.

Second, just because Petraeus met with Romney in NH doesn't mean it had anything to do with the VP slot. My guess is that the meeting was a debriefing about Romney's talks in Israel regarding Iran. This VP stuff is just the latest "look, squirl!" by ObamaCo.

I actually would love to see Petraeus as the VP pick, but I doubt it would happen.

Porchlight

bgates, I must call foul. Are you saying honorable veterans need not apply for POTUS or VPOTUS in future because of McCain?

Sue

Hey, the fun part about this guessing game is we will actually know if someone guessed right. Unlike, say, or guessing game on what is on Obama's birth certificate.

NK

I think Ranger@449 is probably the most accurate take on the Drudge 'scoop' about Petraeus.

Carol Herman

Won't be Petraeus. Might be Portman.

And? Probably will be very boring.

Sue

Oh dear. I sound like Carol now. Oh well....

Carol Herman

Even Ann's dancing horse couldn't hold its own at the olympics.

Languid summer. Romney hasn't really boosted the excitement.

You've seen bumper stickers?

You've seen yard signs?

When it was the "YES" campaign ... on the marriage vote out here, in California. Every other yard had a sign.

Meanwhile, what happened to Rubio?

Who cut his string?

Captain Hate

I asked CH about that, and if I remember correctly, he didn't think Portman was a big help in Ohio.

I think what I said was, or if I didn't I should have said this: Portman is mainly known in the SW part of the state where he was a member of Congress for a while; he's only been a Senator for less than 2 years. People generally like him but I don't know how much he can do that wouldn't be done already. Of course whatever he can bring positively helps.

AliceH

Sue@4:53 - my first LOL of the day! Thanks :-)

Captain Hate

Are you saying honorable veterans need not apply for POTUS or VPOTUS in future because of McCain?

Is there no end to the damage "my friends" can do?

AliceH

I just ran out and voted in MO primary. There were only election workers there when I walked in, 4 people voting when I walked out. I did try choose the slowest time of day... plus it's about 100 degrees out there.

Ignatz

--When it was the "YES" campaign ... on the marriage vote out here, in California.--

Well that explains a great deal.

AliceH

Hey - just realized they didn't give me that little "I voted" sticker. harrumph!

matt

Ranger;

Petraeus is unique in that he spent a lot of time in line airborne and is very real. Yes, he can play the game, but in Mosul he developed the plan against the guidance of leadership that became the framework for the surge. He then wrote the book on it in a very collegial manner with input from all ranks as well as other branches and civilians. He then did it and it worked.

He has open lines to his people and responds rapidly and with knowledge and thoughtfulness. He regularly ran with O-1's and 2's to keep his ear to the ground and I have never heard of a complaint from anyone who served with him except that he is hard core.

When he was a 2LT in Italy he did a long distance run and was beaten by a E-4 who took great delight. He was more upset with himself for not giving more than anything else. You had better have it wired tight in his command, though.

My thought on his early departure from Afghanistan is that he saw it coming while at the same time realizing that covert operations were where the most damage to the enemy is being done. A'stan is an ill begotten mess that even Mohammed couldn't sort out.

Maybe our covert campaigns will stem the tide of Islamic extremism, but I do know that no one knows the threat better and more personally and he would be a huge asset in what I believe to be a civilizational struggle. That combined with the way China has rampaged manufacturing and commerce will define what the world will be in 25 years.

Ignatz

--Oh dear. I sound like Carol now.--

Well, yeah, except for, you know, the crazy part.

[Did I just set a comma density record?]

NK

OT/Trackback-- I saw earlier today a JMHanes comment in Monday night's thread asking 'why' I brought up the poster's name as an issue (as opposed to months ago I guess.) The reason was that poster made a comment naming me, and I wanted to explain why I wouldn't respond to the substance of the comment because I found the commenter name objectionable.

Gun 'Bans' -- never suggested them and total bans are constitutionally prohibited by Heller. Heller does explicitly permit reasonable regulation (like just about everything else in the Bill of rights.)Are there reasonable regulations that are constitutional, have minimal unintended consequences and don't harass lawful owners? Maybe, so a couple of weeks ago I asked JOMers to explain to me why lawful owners would want 100 round magazines-- as an example. Much discussion ensued. That's where things were. Personally, I think a good way to consider laws is to distinguish between the level of firepower that can be carried in public, as opposed to maintained in homes or private clubs. Maybe TomM will have another thread about that at some point.

BB Key

plenty of Romney signs where I live and plenty of Pat signs ,too...

Jane - talk is cheap!

Capt,

Is the SW part of the state farm country/ automobile plants? Cause that is where you need votes I think.

centralcal

Well that explains a great deal.

Oh, dear, Iggy. Carol lives in California???? Why am I not surprised.

NK

CH-- thanks for reminding me about Portman in Ohio. Ohio's huge-- if he helps even a bit, that's a good reason for Portman VP.

bgates

Are you saying honorable veterans need not apply for POTUS or VPOTUS in future because of McCain?

Obviously not. I'm saying honorable veteran status shouldn't be enough to put somebody on the ticket. Does Petraeus think TARP was a good idea? What about the GM bailout? Where is he on amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Roberts decision on ObamaCare, Clinton vs Bush(/Obama) tax rates, affirmative action...?

Sue

Well, yeah, except for, you know, the crazy part.

[Did I just set a comma density record?]

Thanks and you will need Hit to research that for you.

Jack is Back

I have to LOL at the thought of Petraeus even considering a Romney entre to be be his VP candidate. He is a military officer who has spent his life there. He is not a politician except in the sense of his survival in the ranks and staff of the Pentagon's byzantine structure and Machavellian nuance. But he is smart - a lot smarter than his CinC and he has a family and knows that all that gets sacrificed through the lens of politics.

You don't think every day he doesn't remember "Betray Us"? Do you? He is too smart to fall into the trap of slander, libel and unrelenting lies.

RichatUF

I'm stumped that Obama would leak something like this. Wouldn't he want at least a working relationship with his DCI? Hard to do if you think he'll be your opponent's #2 guy in the election. Unless Obama is thinking of cashiering him soon.

As far as him as a selection, not sure. He's never run for anything before, not sure what his policy positions are (and it is not unheard of for the senior ranks to be more liberal than generally thought), but iirc, Gen. Petraeus is from NH and he might make a difference there.

Captain Hate

Is the SW part of the state farm country/ automobile plants?

Farms yes; autos maybe a bit but not big compared to other areas, unless I'm missing something.

Danube of Thought

Mac Arthur seriously considered a run against FDR in 1944, but nixed the idea. He allowed his name to be placed in the Wisconsin GOP primary as a presidential candidate, but got creamed.

Rick Ballard

Rich,

My first thought was a serious policy disagreement backed by a threatened resignation. The move by BOzo would, in the instance, be immunization. I always imagine a snake/weasel crossbreed when considering motive on the part of the President. It's only prudent...

Jack is Back

Well, lets have a JOM poll on who each of us thinks will be Romney's VP pick. We all have different approaches to the decision; will the person help in a battleground state (i.e. Rubio, Portman) or someone with executive experience and white break (Pawlenty, Christie) or someone who is exotic (Jindal, Haley, Ayotte,Martinez) or a wild card (West, Rice, Petraeus, Bolton, Palin) or an outsider (Trump, Jackie Mason) or you can have your own pick out of the blue like (Bolton, Huckabee or Palin).

Me: I pick Christie. [The plain vanilla hounddog].

Extraneus

I think a good way to consider laws is to distinguish between the level of firepower that can be carried in public, as opposed to maintained in homes or private clubs. Maybe TomM will have another thread about that at some point.

In case he doesn't, would you please explain what the private vs. public, home vs. club distinction is about?

hit and run

Sue:

>


Thanks and you will need Hit to research that for you.


I apologize, but I can't speak to records concerning comma density.


But I can tell you that the record for the most commas ever used in a single comment currently stands at 461. This was set in a 8,165 word copy and paste job last summer.


Also interesting: that comment is currently tied for 13th as the least-read comment ever posted to JOM.

Jane - talk is cheap!

The Daily Caller says Christie is not in the running because of this.

I've said Portman for months so I guess I'll stick with it.

hit and run

NK:
Maybe TomM will have another thread about that at some point.

Yeah, because otherwise the stern discipline we engage in here in never going OT on our own topics of conversation would never allow us to talk about it.

Danube of Thought

"Anyone who serves at the rank of O5 or above on active duty knows the art of politics very well."

Politics in one sense, but not in the senses that matter in a candidate for public office. It is never a part of his job to consider what are the optimal marginal tax rates; what limitations can and should be placed on abortion; the pros and cons of school vouchers; state authority on immigration matters; single-payer healthcare; or any of a host of vital matters.

And even if he turned his attention to these questions immediately and formulated the "correct" answer on each one, it is very doubtful that he could comfortably defend his position on them.

henry

Portman as a twofer: budgets and international /trade background. Anything he does for Ohio is a plus, but he keeps it firmly on the economy here and elsewhere.

NK

Ex-- very briefly --IMO society has virtually no interest in the ammount of fire arms and ammunition a citizen keeps in his home or private club for self-defense, defense of family or property or personal use. as long as the weaponry is secured, it poses no risk to the public, so virtually no regulation is warranted.Public carry of weaponry is different, it brings the weapons into public interaction, and poses a potential risk of mass violence and injury. So by way of example, I would support a prohibition on public carry of 40mm grenade launchers or rapidfire 20mm electrically powered miniguns.

(Another) Barbara

Good Tweet:

Will Antonin ‏@Will_Antonin

Getting anxious to learn Mitt's VP pick. I appreciate, though, how narrowing down the "smarter than Biden" list could take a lot of time...

Voldemort Delenda Est ! Sandy Daze

Re Petraues, I met him a few times in Iraq, during all three tours, a Division Commander, Training Commander and later as MNFI Commander. Had to work with his staff on several matters. Helluva guy, tireless worker and a real gentleman.

Saying that, I also know several who were on his personal staff. They tell me he is not an extrovert, but manages well to get the job done. They have suggested to me, over the years, that he would never want to go into politics. But, being the good soldier, he might answer a call.

Petraeus immediately neutralizes any Foreign Policy arguments against a Romney--XYZ ticket. Remember Joe "effing plagiarist" Biden talking about splitting Iraq into three (as if).

Personally I'd live to see Petraeus wipe the stuff off the bottom of his shoes on to Biden when the two debate.

Will it happen? Don't know, can wait for the decision without getting too wrapped over it.

I think the reason why Petraeus was selected for the Agency was to neutralize his threat as a potential Republican candidate.

But again, not only do I understand he is no extrovert, I also understand Mrs Petraeus is a very private person.

Therefore, since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure 45
Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure,
I’d face it as a wise man would,
And train for ill and not for good.
’Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale
Is not so brisk a brew as ale:
Out of a stem that scored the hand
I wrung it in a weary land.
But take it: if the smack is sour,
The better for the embittered hour;
It should do good to heart and head
When your soul is in my soul’s stead;
And I will friend you, if I may,
In the dark and cloudy day.

The world is and will continue to be a dangerous place. Petraeus as VP would certainly let me sleep a bit better at night.

Danube of Thought

"[Did I just set a comma density record?]"

Not a chance. No one can challenge Narc.

NK

Hit-- fair enough about broad commenting topics. I do try to avoid boring people with my OT stuff-- not TOO much anyway.

dublindave

R O M N E Y H O O D/B E T R A Y U S

2 0 1 2

AliceH

Good comment, DoT@5:58. I'd also add, it's politics within a relatively homogenous subject/organization with (at a high level) a common mission vs. both the general public and an opposition party who's own objectives include allowing for mission failure and your total destruction.

NK

DD's against Petraeus, I guess that means I for him.

dublindave

"DD's against Petraeus, I guess that means I for him."


I not for him. I for Obama.

Extraneus

And even if he turned his attention to these questions immediately and formulated the "correct" answer on each one, it is very doubtful that he could comfortably defend his position on them.

I wonder if that's necessarily true. Reagan had no problems coming up with positions on issues he might not have previously considered at length, by weighing them against his fundamental conservative philosophy. (I realize that he also spent many years considering his conservative philosophy.) Democrats have a much more difficult time with this, because the philosophical underpinnings of their positions need to be hidden from the voters, and their positions must be couched in specially formulated language meant to appeal to masses while accomplishing goals that would otherwise disgust the masses.

If Petraeus is a true conservative, he might be smart enough to handle this. Otherwise, if he had to memorize focus-group tested positions on issues, I would agree that he's probably not experienced enough at the b.s. that comes with the territory.

NK

If Petraeus is not a political and fiscal conservative, there's nothing to talk about.

Rocco

I can't see Romney picking anyone from the Northeast like Ayotte or Christie. I think he needs someone that could deliver a swing state like Ohio. I'm going with Portman or Rubio. Has Portman been out there attacking Obama like Rubio has? Isn't that what a VP pick is supposed to do? (after delivering a state of course)

Ralph L

I do want to see him talk about his potential cabinet
It's illegal for a candidate to make a job offer before the election, so he can't name a cabinet.

Clarice

Make Christie Sec of Dod..

bunkerbuster

Every Republican president in our lifetimes has brayed endlessly about cutting government spending only to bust the budget beyond recognition by boosting military spending and starting needless wars.
Maybe Romney would be different -- here again we come to the point that Romney's best-selling point is that he's very unlikely to do what he says he'll do -- but a Patraeus VP pick only underscores what's in store for the budget -- a massive increase in military spending...

Rick Ballard

Henry,

I agree re Portman. His main political task is to bring SloJo's intellectual deficit into play during the single VP debate. That's hardly a bridge too far. If he shifts a few votes in Ohio, that's great, but his acumen re economics is of much greater import.

Danube of Thought

"(I realize that he also spent many years considering his conservative philosophy.)"

Eight of which eere spent as governor of the largest state in the nation.

Danube of Thought

"Every Republican president in our lifetimes has brayed endlessly about cutting government spending only to bust the budget beyond recognition by boosting military spending and starting needless wars."

Speak for yoursel as to your lifetime, but not "ours." Eisenhower was president in my lifetime and started no wars at all; he ended one that began under Truman. Richard Nixon started no war; he ended one that JFK needelessly started and LBJ needlessly expanded. Gerald Ford started no war. Reagan started no war, but did end the Cold War.

Please try to be truthful. You can't wade in here with nonsensical falsehoods and expect to get away with it.

Danube of Thought

Let's face it: Mr. or Mrs. Excitement ain't walking through that door.

MarkO

Because of the impending attacks of racism lurking in the Obama camp, I doubt it will be a white man or woman, boring or not.

My imaginary money is on Rubio.

narciso

So, Bernard Lewis's memoir that daddy has recommended, is just chock full of interesting anecdotes, like when queried by
the Shah, in 1971, why does all the media hate me, Lewis, replied Us foreign policy follows the Marx model, not Karl but Groucho;
'any club that would have us, he wouldn't want to be a member, lesson it's better to be foe, than an ally of the US, he has an ecounter with Mawdudi, the patron of South Asian Salafism who informs him, that neither
Arabic nor Turkish, are the important languages to understand the Middle East but
Urdu, Later on he takes on the philological
historical and other flaws in Said, and we know who is one of his pupils.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame