Posted on 07/05/2012 9:33:47 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
Irrelevant, since Obama's likely to eliminate the military altogether.
I completely agree. But Wisconsin is not as critical as Florida or Ohio.
Has Romney Already Chosen Orange Juice for Breakfast?
I recently read the new biography of Eisenhower by Jean Edward Smith. I think the experience of being a general in the U.S. military lends itself well to the presidency. Especially in Petraeus' case, as like Eisenhower, he had to manage a coalition of allies during a period of war, not to mention all the internal politics of being that high up the command structure. Leadership, ability to delegate and to choose the right people that can get the job done are all abilities we desperately need in the White House right now.
Presidents and Vice Presidents do not spend the people’s money — Congress does. This is why I would prefer that Ryan stay in the House and eventually replace Boehner.
The world began to tip over when Pelosi and Reid assumed control of Congress and Bush failed to veto everything they did.
Before he started the "competence" crap, he was up by 17.
People want to be led, not managed. This is the reason Romney was such a poor choice.
It's also the reson he won't pick a leader as VP - might show him up.
Yes.
If Romney wants to win in the next election, and he is not playing around. He will pick Allen West, it is time to get serious about getting this person out of office. Or we will pay for a life time. Along with our sons and daughters.
JBH wecan
Or she has a thing for Hillary.
Well, there's one thing thing in his favor.
How about “Competent Leadership (for a change...)”
And, Dukakis could use any campaign theme in the world and people would still laugh at his “Tank Commander” photo op.
No Senators please, establishment, conservative, or otherwise.
To me the best choice is Jindal. Executive experience, worked on healthcare, young, ethnic, superb academic credentials, pro-life.
The modern president isn’t simply a manager. He’s a partisan who should be leading both popular opinion and Congress on policy. And if he (or she) doesn’t have a strong small-government orientation, the vested-interest establishment will steamroll right over him with ever greater federal government spending and centralization.
The idea that the VP candidate can help carry his/her home state is overrated. Hell, Romney won’t carry MA.
Jindal and Rubio are my first choices as well, however they are both too bright and energetic to hold the dismal job of VP. I think their talents would be wasted as VP.
Romney has said that what it takes to turn this economy around might mean he is a one term president which doesn’t make the VP spot all that inviting. I think Rubio in his many denials realizes this.
If Romney is destined to be a one term president then maybe he should pick a Portman or a Christie or a Pawlenty to go down with him.
I think Romney realizes if he is elected it will be due to a massive anyone but Ubama vote, and it probably won’t matter who he selects for VP.
And someone who absolutely shines as a leader during a crisis. He's not exactly firewall conservative on every single issue, but he's definitely sharp.
And re: Jindal... those who view him negatively based on that flop of a speech he gave after Obama's faux-SOTU in early '09... remember, damn near 75% of the country had gone all Chrissy Matthews for Obama by that point, and any frontal attack on him would've come off badly. Jindal did as well as could be expected with a difficult situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.