Romney-Petraeus in 2012?
I see that my colleague Bridget Johnson is touting the possible front-runner status of Ohio senator Rob Portman as Romney’s vice-presidential choice. To which I say: if Mitt wants to see all the conservative air go out of his campaign balloon, the colorless Portman would be a perfect choice. Maybe win Ohio, lose the other swing states, and — given the Democrats’ lock on their electoral base of California, the Great Lakes region, New York, and New England — go down in a landslide.
Pretty much the same thing goes for nice-guy former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, another of the top tier candidates. That would be the fellow whose own presidential campaign went nowhere, and who was driven from the race early by the Swiss Miss, Michele Bachmann. (UPDATE: This Pawlenty rumor was being floated as of last night.)
At a time when the Axelrod Democrats’ scorched-earth tactics against Romney are already showing results (he’s a felon! A tax cheat!! A murderer!!!) in swing-state polls — when the Democrats are successfully defining a devout Mormon as a vampire capitalist who laughs as children starve to death — an energy deflating pick like Portman or Pawlenty would send the worst possible signal to the frustrated right, which would be faced with the choice of hustling for a ticket that does not represent its fundamental interests, or picking up its toys, wishing Mitt well, and heading home to await the inevitable.
As Mark Halperin just observed:
Given modern technology, the length and depth of preparation, and the ethos of the Obama campaign, Romney’s pick will be hit harder and faster than any selection ever.
Romney may be tempted to pick one of the colorless, competent white guys to project an above-the-fray, ready-to-govern-on-Day-One image, but there’s just one tiny little problem with that notion: he actually has to win in November before he and his veep can start governing in January. In other words, the GOP may already be preparing to fight the last war and avoiding a polarizing choice like Sarah Palin in the hopes that Obama and the media won’t eat them alive.
Big mistake.
Which brings us to the third man said to be in the running, Paul Ryan. I’m a big fan of Ryan, as you can read here and here, and indeed would have preferred to have seen him at the top of the ticket over Romney, whose weaknesses have been all too predictable, and have been exploited by the Democrats exactly as I feared. As I wrote about Ryan over at NRO:
The first is that he speaks in the cadences of a younger America; he’s like a Quentin Tarantino character come to life, minus the profanity. Obama’s manufactured persona extends down to his mannered way of speaking, with the dropped “g’s” and the use of the word “folks,” but Ryan’s hip, rapid-fire staccato is the real thing.
Second — the deal clincher — is that Ryan is not afraid of Obama. Born in 1970, Ryan’s not dragging around any sixties baggage or angst or animus; he came of age during the Reagan administration and radiates some of the Gipper’s Sunny Jim optimism. Plus, he’s already shown he can take a punch from the president, who clearly fears him
I understand that Marco Rubio and Chris Christie each have special baggage (Rubio might to be open to some reverse-birtherism, while Christie is a little too cozy with some Islamists for comfort), but — given the reality that Halperin articulated above, what difference does it make? If Axelrod, whose unsavory background and associations are far worse than anything on the Republican side, can turn Mitt into Satan, a little baggage is not going to make a hell of a lot of difference — especially when Obama’s own considerable baggage remains tantalizingly unexamined. Either of them would be better than Portman — who’s far more useful in the Senate than he would be as veep — or Pawlenty.
And then there’s this year’s Sarah Palin-style choice: General David Petraeus. The distinguished field commander and current CIA director would seem to be an unassailable choice — until you think back to the “General Betray Us” ad by MoveOn.org:
Sure, Petraeus has said he’s not interested in elective office, but then Eisenhower suppressed his political inclinations right up to the moment he declared himself a Republican and entered the 1952 race in order to stop the isolationist Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio. Further, as the Man Who Keeps the Secrets, Petraeus can have no illusions about the state of the world, America’s dangerous position in it — or his moral responsibility to do something about it if he can.
And, let’s face it: he’s only CIA director because, politically, Obama needed him off the Middle Eastern battlefields (where his name was in the news every day) and stashed away safely in Langley, where his profile would be kept low — and where the president could keep an eye on him. Petraeus — whose intellectual achievements would expose Obama’s educational background for the crude credentialism that it really is — would be the game-changer the GOP needs; even Axelrod, the Jake Lingle of his day, would hesitate to level one of his customary baseless smears against such a great American patriot.
A Romney-Petraeus ticket would be an all-American flag-waving winner, with a member of a persecuted minority group at its top, balanced with a war hero at the other end. The Democrats would seethe and flail, but they wouldn’t be able to match the combination of economic and militarily/foreign policy expertise that the Republicans would offer. It’s the perfect unity ticket… which is why, in this era of Roveian inside-baseball electoral machinations, it will never happen.
Hey, how are those precincts just north of Cincinnati trending?
As it is playing out, Rubio is probably the best pick.
Ryan is the best person, but picking him would immediately turn the contest into a referendum on saving Medicare, which many conservatives would love, but shouldn’t in a year when the economy is the winning issue. Why take on something that you don’t have to and which is high risk. Romney knows this.
Portman or Pawlenty will probaly be picked, and either would deflate the conservative base. I happen to like Pawlenty, but few do. Portman is so bland that he is almost a non-entity. That will appeal to Romney of course.
Christie’s mouth is too big and he’s got too many liberal genes. McDonald is also Mr. Bland, but a better choice than Portman. God forbid that Daniels somehow sneaks in. Walker is way too risky for Romney. The leading women are too unknown for Romney. He won’t want to have the life sucked out of the campaign explaining why they were or were not girl scouts. Jindal would be interesting, but he gets nervous in the glare and he won’t put a single vote in Romney’s corner.
It should be Rubio by elimination.
But Romney will almost certainly go with Portman, Pawlenty or Richardson. If he does muster the guts to pick Rubio, he will pick up 5 million votes, including many conservatives who would otherwise sit out.
“God forbid that Daniels somehow sneaks in.”
Don’t worry about Mitch Daniels. God has blessed Purdue University by making him their new president. In that position Mitch will remain as a quite positive asset and a loyal Boilermaker.
You people are looking for a VP to make up for the deficiencies at the top of the ticket. It is almost as if you want the VP to be the presidential candidate. You had that choice and you blew it. It doesn’t matter who Romney picks, he’s going to lose and lose badly. Even with Portman on the ticket he will lose Ohio. Obama by 5, maybe 6, with over 300 electoral votes.
Rubio didn’t acquit himself well with his “that’s not who we are” attitude toward Bachman and her colleagues who wanted IGs to look into the presence of people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in positions of influence. It was a legitimate and appropriate request, one which Gingrich supported but most of the GOP leadership did not. I don’t know if it was due to naivete or political correctness, but I for one was disappointed.
Me too!
I agree, Rubio has disappointed, more than once, but looking at all the factors he is still conservatives’ best hope and probably the only one other than Petraeus who would add votes to Romney’s column.
I didn’t discuss Petraeus because it is highly unlikely he would accept the position. Also, even though conservatives would welcome him, we really don’t know what his politics are. There could be a lot of unpleasant surprises.
That, SOPA, and inclinations towards a lite version of the Dream Act (Flight of Fancy Act?) make him the little conservative who couldn’t.
Petraeus is pro gay-rights and backed to ending of DADT much earlier on.
Rubio’s parents were NOT US citizens when he was born in the USA, hence disqualified to hold the office of VP because he is NOT a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, just like that liar Obama.
You are wrong about the citizenship issue for rubio. It is not required for your parents to be citizens. The 14th amendmant clearly says if you are born in the USA, under US juristiction (which may exclude ilegal parents but not legal residents), you are a citizen at birth. My concern about rubio is lack of experience, he has not been in thr fray long enough for us to be sure he can take the punches, and that he has no huge vulnerabilities.
Both Romney and Petraeus, rhymes with ‘betray us”, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which intends to deprive us of our constitutional rights by placing us under their New World Order. Various of their group have frequently made their policies known to us. That is treason. Their betrayal of american sovereignty is self confessed; even, eg David Rockefeller, boasted.
It is sufficiently disgusting to be trapped with a choice between Obama the sociopath and Romney, the nutcake religionist. To further insult us with a prospective VP like unto the sycophantic quisling of Afghanistan is too much.
Many of us would vote for Romney if he chose a Pat Buchanan as his running mate.
Many of us will not vote for him should he choose a crippled black alien female with a spanish surname and a perverted sexual orientation
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the issue you’re lamenting has become the norm if you want any sort of career dealing in international affairs. Blame Congress for this since they wrote the rulebook for how flag and general officers (and those aspiring for a star) climb the corporate ladder.
Not only are you required to attend a passel of schools, but serve in joint billets, and get published in magazines such as Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations) or Proceedings (US Naval Institute).
Many have argued against Allen West as VP, mainly on the basis that he’s more valuable in Congress. But what about double-hatting him as VP and SecDef? That would help elevate the VP’s role to something more substantial than the Crown Prince waiting for the King to die.
(And he would simply eviscerate old Plugs in the Veep debate.)
Rumor has it he’s a cannoneer
He’s a reckless buccaneer
I hear he carries several guns with many clips
He’s the annihilator of Islam creeps with information on their lying at his
fingertips
They say he’s nearly seven feet tall
And yet quite graceful… … all in all
I’m told there are lightning bolts when he walks
And thunder when he talks
He’s been many times seen
Wearing DCU and then full OD green
I hear he’s steely as you please
He could be Samurai Japanese
He may be shrewd
He may be rude
Ah well, it’s hard to tell
Who is this Allen West, do tell?
The Muslims and their dhimmis may think he comes from Hell
But he may come from somewhere just around the dell
But he will be here and he will be there
You could see him bringing fire on Islam most any time and most anywhere
He meddles with the Islamic Devolution
Stomping them mightily throughout each week
Spoiling every Imam’s useful idiot’s lying elocution
La, what cheek!
The ethnic frAGMENTATION OF THE US POPULATION IS A FACTOR THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.ALLEN WEST IS THE BEST PROFILE FOR THE VP .AND HE IS STRONG ON REPUBLICAN AND PATRIOTIC VALUES.
Colonel West tis brillig with his slithy toves
They do gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy are his borogoves
And his mome raths do outgrabe
Beware the Allahwock, my heroic one!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Mohmoh bird, and shun
The frumious shariahsnatch!
Colonel West took his vorpal sword in hand
Long time the islamxome foe he sought
So rested he by an old oak tree
And stood awhile in thought
And as in thought he stood
The Allahwock’s Mohmoh bird trying to put the World to flame
Came whiffling through the tugly wood
And burbled hate and subjugation as it came!
One, two!
Red, White and Blue!
The Colonel’s vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galatphing back
“Tap-Tap-Tap……upon the window pane….
…evermore, quoth the Raven…..”
[...with abject apologies to E.A.Poe]
Petraeus for Romney’s running mate? You have got to be G_d damn kidding me! How about as Obama’s running mate? He’d be a FAR better fit. He is Obama’s toady – well that and the Muslims. He shares Obama’s opinion of Israel, and probably even then some. Maybe if Obama doesn’t want Petraeus as his running mate Petraeus could get that gig with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and as Diana West says, “Here’s a plan Gen. Petraeus should be able to get behind: A new battle strategy, maybe a Kilcullen special, for him to join forces with Iran to once and for all nuke Israel and its genocidal apartment houses out of existence. That, according to his own lights, is sure to keep American troops safe in Iraq and Afghanistan”.
Petraeus has no regard for the lives and limbs of American troops, which he places as inferior to Muslim “sensitivities” in his hubris and delusion of “Winning [Muslim] Hearts and Minds”, his beloved Mad Hatter’s “COIN”. He puts respect for the koran, which he calls “The Holy Qur’an”, above his sworn oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. If George Patton came back from the dead, he would kick Petaeus into Kingdom Come.
That’s quite enough from you. You’ve had your say.
If you can’t stand to be mocked, you’ve picked a strange field to be active in.
Feral Cat is right and you are wrong Michael Walsh. Petraeus was good at fighting Islamic terrorists but he is soft on Islam. He has presided over the Afghan debacle with its PC ROE. Afghanistan is a waste of precious blood and treasure.
You have no idea of where Petraeus stands on any domestic issue. Further Petraeus has never run for office. You don’t know what kind of campaigner he would be.
This election is about the economy and fiscal sanity. Paul Ryan is the best choice. He will school the Obama campaign and the media on the fiscal facts. Obama would love nothing more than to see Romney abandon the economy as the campaign issue.
As for your boring white guy comment, I’ll take a boring white guy over an incompetent charismatic person of color any day.
I give Michael Walsh an F- for this silly nonsense.
I’d pay to watch a Ryan-Biden VP debate. Ryan would wipe the floor with him, leaving backstage Democrats wondering “How are we gonna’ spin that!” If he’s not given the slot, he’s definitely my first pick to head OMB in a Romney administration.
Hey Mike, maybe you should stick to reviewing restaurants. Petreus would be a terrible choice because of his political inexperience and go-along-to-get-along attitude in the war against Muslim extremists. If he had the balls of Gen. Schwarzkopf he would have either won the war in Afghanistan or resigned. He is an administration weenie and he would fit in perfectly with Obama. To even think of him and Sarah Palin in the same sentence is ludicrous.
Mr. Walsh, I am afraid you are way off on this one. Easily pick anyone with political experience over the untested, well-credentialed Mr. Petraeus.
I don’t see the wisdom of picking a guy that you think the left will like. Cheney was a great pick for VP. The left hated him and he knew politics from the inside. Why not pick a known, unapologetic conservative? Someone openly interested in rolling back everything Obama touched?
I don’t review restaurants. You’re thinking of someone else.
Sorry, but the only real war hero flag-o to come out of the mush of Iraq & Afghanistan was James Mattis: the only general that wanted to keep fighting when Petraeus et al. were cowering behind mindless airstrikes. A Romney/Petraeus ticket would prove conclusively that there are no Republicans in the Republican Party.
I’m with Walsh.
Petraeus hasn’t entered the political arena and hasn’t invited this kind of scorn. As a soldier, his job has been to implement the policies of the administration. Personally, I would like to see some military peole resign in protest to obama, but it hasn’t happened yet, and probably won’t happen. How many times has it happened in US history? Other than the Civil War, probably never, or at least, VERY rarely.
Speculating on Petraeus’s personal opinions about his assigned tasks, particularly in a demeaning way, is out-of-line.
Hasn’t invited it?
His public statements are on record. You should aquaint yourself with them.
The man is dangerous to this country.
Re:
“The man is dangerous to this country.”…..[...General Petraeus, presumably]
….that’s an incredibly silly statement.
Re:
” As a soldier, his job has been to implement the policies of the administration. Personally, I would like to see some military peole resign in protest to obama, but it hasn’t happened yet, and probably won’t happen.”
Remember always that the Civilian side controls our Military side. They’ll [our Military] do as they’re told, basically.
The comments here seem to reflect unlearned knee-jerk opinions of those who have not been present in the closed-door sessions sitting against the wall behind Gen. Petraeus. I wasn’t ever present either, and so make no pretense of being “informed” about the obviously terrible options available to the General, at any one time, when he decided any particular issue; one assumes he reviewed the information available, and chose the least terrible option. We cannot presume to “hack” the General’s mind. Some here think that they’re “hackers”.
The views of any such as our host here, Mr Walsh, are only those of professional observers with “sources” and “contacts” of varying qualities. No more no less.
Our problem, as mere readers here, is that we “know” even less than the “observers” whom we read….who…let’s face it….don’t know as much as they think they do.
All of us remain handicapped, and that’s the best we can say.
Actually, the “revolt of the Admirals” in the inter-war years (WWII/Korea) was the only instance of military leadership rebelling against their civilian masters. It’s a good story about how a PR blitz, an interservice rivalry, and political skulduggery nearly undermined our defense establishment.
????
Wow. Look up “pretentious” in the dictionary and Micheal Walsh’s picture must be there.
I’ve got three pieces of news for you, Mr. Walsh:
1. This isn’t a classroom.
2. You aren’t the teacher.
3. FeralCat is 100% right.
Petraeus Watch by: Diana West
David Petreaus and Israel by Caroline Glick
I’ll add here, uninvited also, that you’re Mr Walsh’s guest. Mind your manners.
I was looking for your response to these criticisms of Petraeus, but haven’t seen it.
Given these incidents by Petraeus, I must conclude he was simply more lucky than good in Iraq, again got a basic gentleman’s C in Afghanistan supporting horrible ROE but mitigating them slightly, and I haven’t the foggiest idea what the man knows or cares about the economy.
I’ll respect his service as I do any corporal who spent two years driving trucks to the front line, but he has yet to score any net points towards earning a political nomination on the national stage.
Absolutely. Now if he were a warrior like General Patton you would really add to the ticket. But Petraeus has still not come to grips with the nature of the jihadist enemy.
Exactly, how right you are!
feralcat, I agree.
Yahweh, David Petraeus
Would never okay the way you do your thing
Ding ding ding, ding, ding, ding
And you’ll get yours, David Petraeus
Coddlin’ and even sidin’ with that Islam stuff like you do
Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo
Where have you gone, General George S. Patton?
Our nation turns its longing eyes to you
What’s that you say, David Petraeus?
You have banished ‘ol Blood and Guts far away
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
Coo coo ca-choo, David Petraeus
Mohammad appreciates you more than you will know
Woo woo woo, woo woo woo
Allah uses you, yes, David Petraeus
He may grant some short reprieve to those who humanity betray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
What you don’t know about David Petraeus:
Conservatives may think twice before championing CIA director for Romney VP
Petraeus’s Israel Problem
His policy is to turn our back on a staunch ally.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
It sounds like you’re getting all the heat you deserve for your suggestion, Mr. Walsh.
And some Petraeus doesn’t deserve.
But where is he on Miller? Abortion? Tax reform? Entitlement reform?
How is this guy going to put conservative air in the campaign? Merely by having a uniform?
The GOP doesn’t need a gamechanger, it needs to change it’s own game so hat suck weak, poointless candidates McCain and Romney-who can stamp their feet all they want but cannot be told from Democrats, don’t get nominated.
Maybe I need to turn the autocorrect back on.
“…that such week, pointless…” is how that should read.
Not quite. The original “weak” was correct and the correction, “week”, was wrong.
Damn these tiny keys!
It’s okay, Tom. Remember, we’re not laughing WITH you, we’re laughing AT you!
Sadly, Tom, that’s all that’s needed for some “conservatives”.
That’s quite enough from you. You’ve had your say. – “Michael Walsh”
^^^^
Petraeus? Heck no! I just thank God that my husband retired from the army before Petraeus’ “let’s win their hearts and minds” rules of non-engagement got him killed.
I have an offer for General Petreus. I’ll GIVE him one of my balls. Then I’d still have two, and he would have one. He is a politicking coward who cares only about his pension and cashing in on his rank after he retires. The suicidal, defeatist Rules of Engagement he oversees are the unequivocal proof of that. He should resign in disgrace – yesterday, and then present himself to each and every family of our war dead and BEG their forgiveness for failing in his duty as their son or daughter’s commanding officer.
Hear, hear and Amen.
InTrade: David Petraeus to be Republican VP nominee in 2012 – 1.0%.
Michael, I liked your last column a lot better. Republicans like the military, so it is natural they gravitate to candidates with significant military credentials. Most recently, this has given us John McCain and Colin Powell. My view is that military people often represent the “pig in a poke”. You truly have no idea what you are getting. Except this. In today’s military, political skill is much more highly rewarded than combat skill. So, you tend to have sly and savvy political types attain top rank, versus the Patton style of an earlier and long forgotten genertion, we would all like to see save us today.
So I say no thank you. I would rather go into battle with Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker or Vince Flynn. Maybe this last guy could bring real term limits to Washington.
Romney’s ego won’t allow him to make the same mistake McCain made; picking a VP who is more popular than he (Romney/McCain) is/was.
Romney is also too much of a north east liberal to tolerate an extreme conservative as VP.
So we get Romney, and some unknown, bland, non-threatening white bread VP.
Then, IF, Romney gets elected, he’ll do what he does best, make deals with the democrats to ‘get things done’.
It can’t be said too often.
Operation Counterweight.
It makes no sense to me. Petraeus has too much baggage and way too much Muslim sensitivity to appeal to conservatives. Even taking the CIA leadership position under the Obama administration is a negative in my opinion. We’ve not had much luck with ex military (as someone else stated, McCain, Powell). In today’s military, everything is political and voluntary castration is required to reach beyond the rank of colonel.
A self proclaimed “Northeastern, Rockefeller Republican” to run with a self proclaimed “Progressive”, perfect, just perfect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7482356/General-David-Petraeus-tipped-as-Republican-2012-presidential-candidate.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/21/general-petraeus-4-prez-or-vp-are-you-sure-you-mean-that/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll#ixzz0cG9wwtbj
Amen, brother.
Astounding that anybody even mentions Christie as a remotely viable VP candidate. He’s not a conservative, for starters, and that ought to count for something (check his positions on Islam, on immigration, on gun control, on gay marriage, or on anything else under the sun EXCEPT public teachers’ unions–on every single one of these issues he is as bad as Obama or worse). He has the personality of an abrasive Jersey dock boss, for another. He is the least photogenic human being in public life, excepting perhaps Helen Thomas. And oh yes, he despises GOP voters outside his particularly blue corner of New England.
He’s as bad as Giuliani who, come to think of it, was also an absurd option most GOP pundits took seriously.
Absolutely correct! It’s bad enough the GOP has a presumptive candidate who is “proud of MA gun laws”. There is no such thing as a big city northeastern politician who is in favor of Constitutionally limited government regardless of the little letter by his/her name.
Allen West should be the top of the ticket, period, because Romney isn’t good enough for this country.
Petraeus? Are we that hard up? How about one of the other GOP candidates? Or Scott Walker?
“Hard up”? …are you kidding? We should be so fortunate. His demonstrated competence and demonstrated brain-power will be an asset where ever he may choose to go.
It’s not about brains. It’s about VALUES.
The values of General Petreaus are all wrong.
Are you saying Romney will pull a McCain and nominate someone clearly superior to himself for his VP. Just kidding. However, one would have to go around the mountain a few times to get to the conclusion that Romney, himself is NOT “one of the colorless, competent white guys to project an above-the-fray, ready-to-govern-on-Day-One image.”
Actually, Romney would have to employ Dr. Phil to find someone more colorless than himself.
I wish that Walsh would retract this really silly statement:
“And then there’s this year’s Sarah Palin-style choice: General David Petraeus.”
No comparison could be any more outlandish….that sentence destroys the worth of the whole article.
Frankly, the less said about that “governor” of Alaska who “resigned” the job halfway through her first term, the better.
Certainly she’s a nice personable woman, and physically attractive…..but certainly not the least material for public office of any sort.
It is an outlandish statement, she’s clearly the superior choice compared to Petraeus.
Right on. Sarah has almost as many balls as Ann Barnhardt but lacks Ann’s diplomatic touch.
Okay, I’ve got a radar fix on you now.
You’re a liberal troll.
Petraeus is a liberal. As mentioned above he is anti-Israel and an Arab apologist. The “General Betrayus” smoke-and-noise was just the Lefts normal at any cost tactics even if Petraeus was a lib (colateral damage in attacking Bush). Proof positive is, Univ of Penn gave him an honorary degree. You do not get an honorary degree from Patrice Lumumba Univ West unless you are a liberal, and the preference is flaming. Being military does not make you conservative (see Wesley Clark and Jimmy Carter).
Petraeus is a good general, but politically is terra incognita. I’m sure he is a nice guy, but one doesn’t vote for a uniform. Washington politics is beyond his range of experience, expertise or natural inclination. Bad choice. To describe Carter as ‘military’ is humorous. Jimmeh was a twerp nuclear engineer in a blue uniform, and is about as military as a ground slug.
No, he’s not at all, Carla. He’s a self-proclaimed “Rockefeller Republican” (READ: LIBERAL WHO LIKES BIG BUSINESS) and a Muslim apologist.
We don’t need to know any more than that.
Two reasons to skip Petraeus –
1) Colin Powell was Petraeus after the first Gulf War. He was heralded as the next Reagan. Instead, he was the first Obama.
2) We’re broke, foreign policy is irrelevant. Our greatest enemy is the domestic terrorist known as “Government Spending”.
Petraeus has nothing useful to offer.
Living, as I do, in one of those fabled suburbs just north of Cincinnati, I say that the idea of Patreus as VP does very little to encourage me. I would get a bigger lift out of Condi, but would be happy with Ryan or even Rubio. T-Paw? He gets little more than a snort of derision – slightly stronger favorables than Bachmann. Portman? I really do like the guy, but let’s leave him in the Senate for a while longer. West? While I do enjoy the theater of the absurd that he inspires from the CBC, SPLC, and other traditional greviance groups, I don’t see him bringing a lot of the middle across the divide. There are plenty of others that I admire on principle (Coburn?), but I don’t see any of them making a strong impression on the gereral electorate.
So, no to the Ts & Ps, yes to any of the Rs (Ryan, Rubio, Rice).
Here’s the deal. The Republican ticket needs someone who can bring independents and erstwhile Democrat voters to their side. That’s it. Simple enough. If there is one common denominator among a vast swath of working or wishing to work voters it is their revulsion for the situation that now exists whereby far too many can make it their livelihood to sit at home on their ass, often surrounded by their illegitimate offspring, and live off the rest of us. The Democrats champion that lifestyle and even the most disengaged among us have had enough of it. Select a VP candidate who can play to this revulsion and you’ll have a winner. The voting workers in America still outnumber the non-voting drones. Select someone who will energize the former. Hint: It isn’t anyone whose last name starts with a “P”.
If anything has been proven, it is that a know nothing community organizer and an empty headed gaffe o matic can be elected and hit the ground running…stop with the safe choices, we want a statesman or a pit bull. Here are the three: Christie, Patreus, Rubio. Get with it!
Oh, great. A RINO, a RINO, or a mushy-middle waffler?
I wish that Patreus was the magic bullet, but unfortunately, he is not. What this campaign needs right now is someone, (should be Romney) out there fighting like mad, instead of trying to be nice and correct. We need someone as tough as the dems. Sometimes I wonder about the Republicans. Why is it that they seem to want to fight to lose?
Because it’s a rigged game and it has been for a long, long time.
I have little idea what Patreus’s political positions are on the most pressing issues of the day. As far as I am concerned he may just be another RINO or ‘moderate’ [read librul] like General Powell. Proof to the contrary would be welcome. More is known about the politics of just about every other possibility mentioned on the long list. Patreus is a big ?
‘Petraeus…would seem to be an unassailable choice — until you think back to the “General Betray Us” ad by MoveOn.org”
…hmm, more than a hint of NRO/milquetoast/CYA/both-sides-of-the-mouth-mask-of-Janus there. The point to many of us is that Petraeus could easily wear the MoveOn smear as a battle honor, and Romney would come out way ahead.
A Romney-Petraeus ticket would be an all-American flag-waving winner, with a member of a persecuted minority group at its top…blah blah blah
…so you’re trying to sell Romney as a member of a persecuted minority? NRO-speak in extremis, or something. You’re nuts.
Petraeus seems to represent an in-your-face insult to the left, which is excellent. We do not want a uniter, but someone with the conviction and eloquence to take the fight to the bastards. That could be Petraeus. Question is, what does he want and believe, on a slew of issues? — e.g., I’ve heard the smear that he ‘hates Israel’ but don’t know the truth. The allegations are dated and derived from Vanity Fair, so the red flags flutter. What does he believe now? Frankly, the objectors sound like they protesteth too much.
As for Ryan, let’s hope he’s too talented and too smart to accept the job — his glory days are ahead. Same is true of a bunch of people, some R in name only. All are better off if they keep their powder dry, so is the country: years of struggle lie ahead.
As for Petraeus, by contrast, his country’s final call could be a fine way to end a distinguished career. He would deserve and would receive the respect of a grateful nation. Can that be bad?
What about former Secretary of Defense and former Director of the CIA (and Boy Scout!) Robert Gates? He’d be a sterling pick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
Petraeus is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is America’s headquarters for the New World Order/Globalists/One World Government. Their goal is to emasculate the United States, and turn us over to the United Nations for governance. Anybody but a CFR member—PLEASE!
Forget Petreus. He’s just a perfumed prince of the Colin Powell type.
The guy we need is LTG Russel Honore, because its pretty obvious that we and the GOP are “…stuck on stupid.”
Sorry, that ‘hmm…’ paragraph shouldn’t be italic – hard to read as is.
It seems to me obvious that Romneycare will be brought up to defend Obamacare, the Won’s most vulnerable spot. Check out Bobby Jindal’s credentials in health care reform, then add experience in Congress and in cleaning up the corruption in Louisiana while showing himself a capable administrator. Let Mitch be the glamour boy and Bobby provide the substance.
I will concede that Jindal is the most qualified. And he should take it if offered, because if he counts on Obama winning re-election and then running in 2016, the nation may want “bland and boring white” for the next century,
But I fear the optics of an “H1B/Outsource” ticket and its dampening effect on conservative turnout.
Plus, Jindal doesnt seem to be enough of a genuine desi or “Apu” to get suburban Hindi and other Indian-American voters to flip and turn places like northern Virginia.
Petraeus is an unknown politically. It is my belief that while there are REMFs that suck down the koolaid, there are a great many more that are holding down the fort until the calvalry arrives.
It is no small task to stomach the unstomachable. Until he actually leaves the military, it is not possible to explore the depths of Gen Petraeus politically.
Obama needs to lose. There is no perfection. Rubio brings a great many votes with him. Romney needs all of them. Therefore Rubio is the best choice to procure victory in November.
Palin gets Sec’y of the Interior. Trump gets Sec’y of State. Petraeus gets Defense. Bolton heads back to the UN.
You have GOT to be kidding!
Trump? What does he have to offer? Why would any sane person every consider him for ANY public office?
Two thoughts:
1. The idea that Mitt Romney is “timid” is wrong. That mistakes politeness for timidity. My sense is that Romney is tough as nails when he thinks it necessary, but always in private. What you see in the external Romney is the result of good breeding, schooling in manners, something that is so rare today as to be mistaken for timidity. And since his manners are bred into him, Romney will always be seen by some as “timid.”
2. What power Matt Drudge has! Now there’s someone who’s not “timid.”
I have to already stomach Romney, I have to already stomach “Republicans” who knuckle to Democrats/Libtards who set the terms of the game/battle, I already have to stomach elected and appointed Democrats who are eagerly seeking dhimmitude.
Now, you want me to stomach Petraeus as the VP pick for Romney?! Petraeus is a pure opportunist who is much better suited to be a Democrat than anything else. There are very very few in the military who respect a man who voluntarily steps down from being a COCOM to being a Specificed Command Commander while retaining the higher rank. Even fewer respect a man who quielty retires at the behest of a grossly corrupt President into a role that deliberately minimizes him (again), and he does it willingly! There is nothing of the nobility of doing it for the country, nothing at all. This man married to get ahead, this man tried everything he could to get ahead as fast as he could while in the Service, and no he is a lapdog. My dealngs with him in Iraq showed he sometimes had no grasp of reality, he has just been very lucky and has benefited tremendously from the general quiet professionalism of those serving with and beneath him.
I would rather Romney pick whitebread Portman or the dhimmi Christie and lose outright than pick a snake like Petraeus. And as long as I’m at it, Rubio is a coward to attack Bachmann over the Huma Abedin security issue, which is a very valid issue needing to be answered.
Semper Fideles,
Webfoot Warrior
Served in Iraq and Afghanistan!
Sorry, meant “quietly” vice “quielty.”
As #9 tom said, “Damn these tiny keys!”
S/F, Webfoot Warrior
Sorry, but you misinterpret a lot of what happened. Petraeus “volunteered” to step down from CENTCOM in the same way you “volunteered” for firewatch in boot camp or TBS. He was “asked” and graciously agreed. In actual fact, he had no choice. No reason he should lose a star over that.
He didn’t retire at Obama’s behest. He had nowhere else to go. (CJCS had just been filled, and he couldn’t hang around 4 more years waiting for that.)
And your reading of the man are completely the opposite of mine, but your seem to have brought some preconceived baggage to yours.
(Served in Afghanistan.)
Well said.
A Romney-Petraeus ticket would be an all-American flag-waving winner…
Whoa, watch it with the “winner” part. I suppose putting a guy like Petraeus with Mitt wouldn’t make the ticket any worse, but the guy’s proven, twice, that he adds little to the game. He accepted and embraced a command with no definition of victory, and didn’t complain about that ridiculous fact. True, winning the hearts and minds of Moslems is literally impossible, but a truthful voice from the command would help Americans understand why this is our longest lasting war.
Being an artful dodger is not being a good commander.
“How are those precincts just north of Cincinnati trending?” Well, Butler and Warren counties north of Cincinnati are the most solidly Republican counties in the entire state and always have been, and they are likely to be even more so in this election. It’s the populous northeast Ohio area of Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown that Romney has to worry about, where nearly all of the 2008 voter fraud occurred and where the state will be either won or lost. This is where the Romney campaign should concentrate. I agree that Portman is not enough of a stand-out to help much outside of Ohio, whereas if someone who has the universal respect that Petraeus has earned were chosen then the election would be pretty much over. I can see why Obama wanted to get him out of the limelight.
You assume, of course, that Petraeus is a conservative. No way of knowing, but I’d say not necessarily. Many don’t know that General Stanley McChrystal, the snake eater’s snake eater, is a big Obama fan. No reason Petraeus couldn’t be, too.
You assume, of course, that Petraeus is a conservative. No way of knowing, but I’d say not necessarily.
This makes him the perfect running mate for Mitt. Together, they’d comprise a unified ticket where one never knows true intentions, much less principles, and each is sure to disappoint.
Given Barack Hussein credit: any discerning voter in 2008 knew his background was heavily cloaked cuz the guy’s a Marxist; when he repeatedly stated his intent to transform America, he never said into what. But we knew what, into a modern Marxist nation-state with, thereby, a strong globalist principle.
And that’s what Prez Barack Hussein delivered. He turned out to be a man of his (strongly implied) word. For me, his crowning moment was his great speech in Cairo. I had no idea that Moslems helped build America; by listening to the speech I learned something new.
You’ve got to be kidding. Back in the 1950′s when Eisenhower ran, there was a military man in every American family. Now the military is a bit like the Shriners—everyone respects them, but very few people understand the mindset.
This besides the fact that we know nothing of his political views or competence, and that he has no experience running for office, and all the criticism above.
Folks—It is either Rubio or four more years of Obama. Unless there is a serious vetting problem we don’t know about (such as an affair), I can’t imagine any reason for nominating anybody else. Rubio brings Florida, Tea Party, and enough Latinos to make Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado interesting. Show me any other potential VP nominee who comes anywhere close to that.
ps. I hope you aren’t serious about the birther issue. The 14th amendment says that anyone born in the USA is a citizen, period, end of discussion. It doesn’t matter if your parents are American, Cuban, or Martian.
The 14th amendment says that anyone born in the USA is a citizen, period, end of discussion.
Of course, this ain’t true. And the law, such as it is, puts a period on that, as in end of discussion:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 16, Section 1, Clause 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
But don’t worry about being wrong: even two great Ivy League-trained legal minds, professional news entertainers and “conservatives” Ann Coulter and Hugh Hewitt have concluded that the phrase in black above doesn’t count. So, if you’re born of an illegal immigrant subject to Mexico or Guatemala or China or wherever on American soil, this phrase doesn’t count. They don’t say why not, but there must be a reason. Maybe Ann, Hugh and the others don’t wanna offend anyone.
This is an example of where the text of the Constitution isn’t law, it’s alive instead.
Where is there any evidence he is subject to any other nation’s laws?
THe courts have ruled on this and it doesn’t matter what we THINK the law should be.
Rubio is natural born, and eligible. So is Jindal.
I’d like to see that changed, but it will take an Amendment do so do.
Meanwhile, they are both eligible.
Stop whining about it.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means that you are under US Law.
Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: They can be prosecuted in US courts, have to pay taxes, etc. The only people currently in the US not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreign diplomats who have immunity. Maybe also people in foreign-flagged passenger ships in US waters; I’m not sure about that. In the old days also some of the Indian tribes had vestigial sovereignty and tribe members were not citizens. Most likely it was the non-citizen Indians who were intended by this exception clause in the 14th Amendment. Those Indians got citizenship after WWI.
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was appointed by Bill Clinton to head an immigration reform panel in the 1990s. She was a Liberal Democrat and the first Black woman to represent the South in Congress, and made her name in the Watergate hearings. Her panel recommended amending the Constitution so that children of foreigners do not automatically get citizenship. The fact that a Black woman would recommend amending the 14th amendment shocked Liberal opinion, which was expecting yet another “amnesty” like the one supported by Reagan. But of course the Black community has long been restrictionist on immigration. (Liberals always underestimate the patriotism of Black Americans.) Needless to say her recommendations were deep sixed.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means that you are under US Law.
A newborn is legally defined as subject to the same sovereignty as the parents, or at least the woman, was at the time.
Where is there any evidence he is subject to any other nation’s laws?
Who, Petraeus or Rubio? Whoever you’re talking about, it doesn’t apply to the correction made in my post. The fantastic conclusion that anyone born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen is just plain mistaken and belief in it is hugely damaging. And, when Fox accepts such a mistake, then it becomes Fox RINO, which in fact it has been since its beginning. All I did was correct a widespread “misconception” that’s been pushed by globalists for decades.
Prez Barack Hussein has big plans for his second term. Perhaps the biggest of those is immmigration “reform.” The only reform needed is to enforce existing law, but that’s been declared not possible and even criminal under the Racism clause. I once wondered where that clause is in the Constitution, but now I know: it’s not there; it’s on the TV instead. For convenience, probably.
I’d like to see that changed, but it will take an Amendment do so do.
No, it would take enforcement of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, they are both eligible.
So long as a judge says so, which is the unhappy result of the non-use of the powers of impeachment. Then the question is whether they’re made “eligible” by enforcement of the law or the lack of enforcement.
Stop whining about it.
Characterizing a demand that the law be forced as “whining” is a perfect example of the pussification of America. To attain such an exalted state, you must first admit that something is the law, but isn’t because of confused or crooked judges, propose an amendment to add something that’s already there, and then call for silence until such a corrective amendment is passed. Whoa.
““Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means that you are under US Law.
A newborn is legally defined as subject to the same sovereignty as the parents, or at least the woman, was at the time.”
Legal immigrants in the USA are under US law when they are here, not the law of their birth nation. So a child born in the USA to legal residents, is born under US juristiction, and thus a citizen at birth. I beleive the US supreme court has already decided that issue multiple times. That is why people born to legal immigrants in the USA normally have dual citizenship. They get US citizenship from being born here, but also inherit the citizenship of their parents nations.
The only time the citizenship of the parents matters is if you are not born on US soil, in which case you are a US citizen if one of your parents is one at your birth.
Sorry to see that even the PJ Media crowd needs an education in the definition of natural-born citizen, but here goes. It’s not equivalent to citizen or native-born citizen, and it’s not addressed by the 14th Amendment. Rather, it’s a requirement for eligibility to the presidency, per Article II, and holds for the vice-presidency as well, per the 12th Amendment.
Natural-born citizenship was defined by the Supreme Court in 1875, in Minor v. Happersett: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED that ALL CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH, CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE THE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” (That common law was elaborated in Vattel’s The Law of Nations, which I understand was being read with appreciation by those attending the Constitutional Convention.)
That is, a natural-born citizen must be 1) born on US soil, 2) to parents who were both US citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Obama, Jindal, and Rubio are, all three, not natural-born citizens, because one or both parents weren’t US citizens at the time of the children’s births. They are permanently ineligible to be POTUS or VPOTUS, and I will not vote for any of them. I only regret that the Republicans lack the manhood to sue Obama over this issue.
What Romney needs the most is an attack dog. Petraeus isn’t it.
This Petraeus buzz is nonsense, the result of political hacks. He will not be asked; he would not accept a VP slot. He is in the CIA for very simple reasons. Obama needed a Sec Def who would cut the Pentagon budget in half. That takes Congressional clout. Leon Panetta was the guy. Gen. McChrystal, a meat eater, blew his mouth off; had to go. Petraeus was becoming a military hero, could become a threat to the anti-war Obama. Where is a good place to bury a hero? CIA.
Why bring up his name now? To split the anti-war, anti-CIA faction in the Obama camp. Force them to face reality, Obama’s wars. They may stay home, not vote.
In the real world, the war on terror, there are fundamental problems in the role of the CIA vs. the role of the Dept of Defense. The problems have been a chronic burden on both organizations, for a decade. Petraeus is in a unique position to guide us, but no one cares, with the economy topic No. 1.
He will shortly retire, at >$17,000/month, and make big bucks on the talk circuit.
If Rommey wants to live in the White House, he must pick a black Hispanic conservative Christian, from the south, to balance the ticket and split the liberal vote. But he will pick some white guy from Harvard. Rommey is not a gambler, like McCain.
This election will be close.
Oh Yes, your most definitely right, an all American winner, Yippi Ki Yay!
For the American Left and for the Muslim Brotherhood “CAIR” to whom he has promised to install within his administration, the courts and schools, not to fail in mentioning his obsessive need to create Muslim Charter Schools throughout the United States.
Are you kidding me? Rosie would make a good match for Willard the Rat!
Tell you what Michael Walsh, you keep this Islamic sympathizer Gawd In Training to your lonesome brother and if Patraeus has a salt lick of common sense he would stay clear of this godless Rat called Willard!
American Red White and Blue my butt! Try Islamic Yellow Black & White with the Rainbow Flag of the Left right along it’s underbelly.
I repeat, my Welsh Corgi could do a better job than Obama, but my Welsh Corgi is smart enough not to run for president. Romney continues to be the worst possible person outside the current Democratic party for the job…Petraeus provides nothing to change that fact…the GOP has written its own end in history (as well as that of the US) by not picking from one of several much more qualified candidates who did run
Michael, you are usually pretty insightful…but not today.
Patraeus once said that he, as a General Officer, doesn’t vote. While he has his duty to obey orders, failure to vote betrays his country.
What are his core principles?
It’s long been a tradition in some branches of the services that officers don’t vote. The reason is that they owe their allegiance to the nation and to the Commander in Chief and should not be swayed by partisan passions. It’s one of the reasons we don’t have military coups in this country.
Read Blumenson’s “Patton Papers”. GSP also didn’t vote.
Adm Mike Mullen said the same thing to those of us subjected to AFN broadcasting.
Petraeus is a warrior at a time most of the country doesn’t want war. He would be a miserable choice bringing a devastating loss to the Right. The only smart choice is Ryan.
R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. that was pretty funny: picking a black, Hispanic, Jewish Christian. You forgot woman. Pandering will turn off the American center. Blacks will never vote for a Republican. Never. Hispanics might a little with Rubio, but not too many. Southerner? Nah.
Only one person can rile up the voters: Paul Ryan. Honest. Forthright. Truly intelligent. Able to speak extemporaneously. An economist in a heading-for-bankruptcy country. With facts. Someone to respect, unlike the Sexy Prexy and his old buffoon, and admire. Youthful. And to boot, he doesn’t take himself so seriously unlike the embarrassingly-self-centered President of the Democrats. I think it’ll be obvious Ryan wants what’s best for us, while the president simply wants to be president to be admired and show his deadbeat, alcoholic, long-gone father that he’s OK.
I can’t get excited about Petraeus at all. The whole premise of COIN, which he championed, is to win over the hearts of the population. May work for some, but we in the West still cannot fathom the ideological fight we must take to our enemies. It’s NOT a question of going against radical islam. That concept doesn’t exist. We ARE fighting an ideological conflict with ISLAM, and we haven’t even begun to fight it as they are with us. That Petraeus was successful (at least until Obama decided to lose the peace by prematurely pulling out, which actually wasn’t a bad idea given we weren’t willing to fight the ideology anyway), is a tribute to a fabulous group of fighting forces, our military, despite the nebulous goals of Iraqi Freedom and the WOT proponents.
We don’t know Petraeus’ ideology, but given he stayed on with this dreadful Obama regime, I’m not impressed. I’d be far happier with a firebrand Allen West or a wonkish Ryan, but at least somebody with cojones to identify our enemies as they are: leftism and islam.
I made a prediction about Petraeus in my seminal book, “The Currents of World History” (at Amazon Kindle). This book identifies and details a 70-year cycle of history, and recognizes a pattern in Ulysses S Grant following the Civil War, Dwight D Eisenhower after WWII, and David H Petraeus after the War on Terror. It also identifies why the latest West Point graduate may come in as a VP candidate rather than presidential candidate like the other two.
No
Petraeus Watch by Diana West
David Petreaus and Israel: by Caroline Glick
I condemn the action of the individual in the United States who burned a copy of the Holy Qur’an. That action was hateful. It was intolerant, and it was extremely disrespectful. I condemn the actions of a small number of individuals who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qur’an.
Muhammad declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind.
Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog.
Rubio’s parents were NOT citizens of the USA at the time of his birth. Rubio is a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. Ditto Jindal: Minor v. Happersett.
If the Constitution still matters to anyone.
Christie is a dhimmi, and Petraeus’ ROE baggage tells the tale.
Paul Ryan is the man.
The Law of Nations by de Vattel was used by John Jay who became the first Chief Justice of the US.
Jay had the ‘natural-born citizen’ clause inserted in the Constitution via a letter he wrote to Washington. Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Now let’s see what de Vattel said in his book: “The citizens are the members of a civil society; bound by this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or ‘natural-born citizens’, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
SCOTUS, so taken with this meaning, used the above when deciding The Venus, 12 US 8 Cranch in 1814 and also included this from the same book: “Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.”
Peter Bullcalf speaks the truth … and by the way; Petraeus IS a very PC general by all accounts, which is an automatic DQ in my book. No more PC generals and political hacks; just country first and real warrior guys for me. If Petraeus can’t see the connection between the left and Islam then he’s a moron. Islam cannot be “holy” like Petraeus believes – going by what he himself said – because Allah simply cannot be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why? Well … here’s why:
1. The Quran teaches that allah (small god) is ONE; i.e. has no son. There is a denial of the existence of the Trinity and states that Jesus is just another prophet. The Quran doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the Holy Spirit.
2. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a lover of Israel and has sworn to protect Israel forever. God has promised us that He is going to bless those that bless Israel; and curse those that curse Israel.
3. Allah, the god (small “g”) of the Quran – on the other hand – hates Israel. Allah teaches his followers that those who make war against Israel will be blessed; in direct contradiction to what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob says.
Clarification on this point is long overdue because it is the basis for the war on Israel and the U.S.A. waged by Islam. Conquering the U.S.A from within just like the MB sez. Just ask allah (small “a”).
@ 53, 54: Luka
Bad, bad idea to rely on a prissy little twit like D West, a self-styled grown-up. ‘Partly it was the pat sweep of the superlative’. Well, goodness…
C Glick is worthy of respect, though her reach often exceeds her grasp, but that post is too old to be useful today (read the comments).
Of course questions about Petraeus remain: what does he believe in? The detractors are falling short — no surprise, perhaps, since drive-by sneers by ignorant superPacs coughed up Romney in the first place, and hit’n'run donors substitute for thought in the heads of far too many Republicans.
If Petraeus is a PC poodle whose career is all about groveling for personal advantage, and if he’s incapable of an effective attack-dog role, then he’s unfit. BUT… the people dumping on him are not convincing. We need to know more. Remember, this is about damage control (Ryan ain’t no pit bull and can’t do it either; his talents lie elsewhere).
The GOP made its own squalid bed and now asks the rest of us to lie in it, lazy and reactive as always. The goal, girls, is to make Romney look good. If you’ve never polished a turd before, now’s the time to learn: fail and you’ll re-elect Obama.
Diana West is not a prissy little twit. She, among other things, along with PJM’s own Andrew C. McCarthy is a member of “Team B II”. As to “We need to know more” on Petraeus, I commented all manner of information including from Andrew McCarthy and from Petraeus himself, but Michael Walsh deleted most of it and told me to shut up.
Well, she’s good on social issues but entirely out to sea in military affairs. Her column on David Kilcullen is a perfect example … very prissy: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0607/west060107.php3.
You are making what I believe is called “argument against the man” or in this case “argument against the woman”. She is very knowledgeable on foreign affairs. How else do you think she became, like Andrew C. McCarthy, a member of “Team B II”? Why do you think John Bernard links to her web site on his web site? Now Petraeus may know a bit more about foriegn affairs than her, but most of what he knows is all wrong and certainly anti-American.
As to your calling her “prissy”, would you call a man with her views on Islam, “prissy”? Would you call Andrew McCarthy, “prissy”? How about Robert Spencer? How about Allen West? How about John Bernard? How about Winston Churchill? How about Charles Martel?
I condemn the action of the individual in the United States who burned a copy of the Holy Qur’an. That action was hateful It was intolerant, and it was extremely disrespectful. I condemn the actions of a small number of individuals who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qur’an.
His own statements tell us all we need to know.
He’s a liberal.
I’d watch that VP debate.
Petreaus would certainly be good on national security grounds, provided he is willing to take the job, and has no unacceptable domestic issue stands.
I agree Portman/Pawlenti are all far too boring, especially Portman, who also has too many ties to Bush. Christie of course is hardly boring, but he may also be a loose cannon, has repeatedly said he doesn’t want the job, and may have too many leftist positions on minor issues. Rubeo is exciting, and conservative, but a little short of experience, which means he might not be ready for the meatgrinder, and might still have inknown weaknesses.
I like Ryan. The dems are going to tie the Ryan plan around our neck anyway, but unlike others Ryan is clearly able to defend it and explain it in a way average people can understand and approve of, and can effectively attack Obama on economic and budgetary matters. And it will turn the election into a referendum on economics, spending, and size of gov, exactly the areas where Obama is his worst, where we are strong, and where the electorate most wants change.
By his blaming Israel for the violence by Muslims in the Middle East, by his condemning and trying to deny American civilians their right to free speech, by his repeatedly declaring the most evil book the world has ever known, Holy, by his placing the lives and limbs of American troops as inferior to Muslim “sensitivities”, by his squandering vast amounts of American Blood and Treasure on the alter of his own hubris – By each of these things and so many more Petraeus’ calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent inquirer is almost inconceivable.
In other words, one does not exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure him out.
Sherlock Holmes, no, but one DOES need the ability to read his plain statements.
Apparently, that ability is not universal.
I’d rather vote for Petraeus-Romney.
Why?
What are the specific policy positions, values, or character traits that you would point to that suggest he would be a good President or Vice President?
Specifics. Not just the vague idea that generals must be good leaders.
We’ll wait….
Because Petraeus has demonstrated two of the most important requirements for leadership at any level, including the Presidential: The capacity to make a decision and follow through with it, and conversely, the ability to accept that a direction or policy, no matter how beloved, has failed, and requires review.
Romney is undoubtedly a good businessman. You can’t do what he’s done and be otherwise. But politically he’s harder to pin down to an actual decision or direction than one of those nodding-bird toys you put on the edge of a glass. Everything he’s now against he used to be for, and vice versa. I don’t know him, and I don’t trust him. Petraeus, I trust.
Isn’t it nice the Muslims invited the Special Forces guys to their last dinner? I mean, they could have just off-ed them on the street. I think having them over to dinner meant the Muslims really did like the American soldiers, they just were following their orders fron the Holy Qur’an to slay the infidel and did it in a very warm and hospitable way. Didn’t I tell you we were making progress with winning their hearts and minds? Frankly, and I don’t mean to take all the credit, but I see this as a real breakthrough.
Nice use of sarcasm. Now, if you have anything to say other than “I don’t like muslims…”?
Well, you got a character trait.
What about values? What about specific policy positions?
Hitler was a great leader. We need much more than a great leader.
We need a GOOD leader.
Petraeaus is not good.
He’s also moot.
The only VP choices that make sense is Christie or Rubio. I do not care about any of the others. I want someone that can articulate the conservative platform to anyone and these two can do it. I also do not want some bi-golly type of person who does not have any b–ls. This time we need a dynamic personality type that can bring it home. I am sick and tired of all the lies and down right creepy things going on in this administration. Damn, I think I could do a better job…
Romney should be publicly vetting Cheney, for the simple pleasure of watching democrats heads explode.
Great news!!! Petraeus now at 0.3% on Intrade. That’s 1 chance in 333. I wonder if this article had anything to do with his great surge.
Susanna Martinez of New Mexico
David Petraeus is a political moron, who thinks that americans soldiers, who get killed in, the muslims lands are not killed because they are there, but because there is no peace in the Middle East, it is bad enough to haw a whaco as a CIA chief, but to have him as a potential US president?