Posted on 09/09/2007 10:31:45 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Last Friday, The Washington Times reported that "three of the eight announced 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are considering retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks as their pick for vice presidential candidate." The Times did not say which three campaigns these were, but it is hard to imagine that lower-tier candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul, are making up vice presidential short lists at this point. If three active candidates have Franks on their radar, there is a strong chance that top contenders like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are among them. Fred Thompson, when he announces, could make a fourth.
Some Republicans, however, have a different soldier in mind for the vice presidency. Last spring, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol told a group of college students, in an off-the-record meeting of the Harvard Republican Club, that a ticket of Fred Thompson and David Petraeus might be able to avert electoral disaster for the GOP next year. If Petraeus proves successful as a military commander in Iraq, Kristol said, he could be a potent running mate for the former senator from Tennessee. Kristol also mentioned that he was not the only conservative insider thinking along these lines.
It is striking that Kristol would tout General Petraeus's potential as an electoral asset while the man is still working to stabilize Iraq - a job that should be entirely nonpartisan. If Petraeus is half the soldier he's been made out to be, it would be unthinkable for him to abandon his military mission to join a political campaign. No less notable than Kristol's speculation, though, is the fact that both Franks and Petraeus might be considered desirable vice presidential prospects, even as public enthusiasm for the war remains weak.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalinsider.com ...
This is an intriguing idea, one which could turn give the GOP ticket new credibility on foreign policy.
Well this is a news flash, since when did Huckabee become a top contender.
I still can't get the image of W.Kristol salivating over the JFKerry win election night 2004, so what he attempts to plant has no credibility with me.
The president needs a running mate and a person qualified to assume the role if something happens to the prez.
There's more to President than Commander in Chief. Besides, the VP doesn't need to be ex military with the joint chiefs and Sec of War (sounds better than Sec of Def).
Somebody should be striking Krisol, and HARD. To characterize Petraeus as a Republican partisan at this critical moment is the height of irresponsibiblty.
Does he think the Iraq war is some kind of GAME??!!!
Only if this new VP would be tasked, number one and primarily, to lead a massive militarization of our southern border, calling into full force airmen, sailors and marines (and navy in Pacific/Gulf waters), while an Israeli type inpenetrable wall would be constructed around the clock. THEN I would support a “General” for Vice President.
This is an intriguing idea, one which could turn give the GOP ticket new credibility on foreign policy.
I’m a little surprised Bill Kristol would broach the subject of Petraeus in politics on the same week that the Democrats and the drive-by’s are moving heaven and earth to portray him as a political hack.
Bumping this, as I was watching Tommy Franks on the H&C, I thought of him as a great VP choice for whoever of the fine Republicans we select as our nominee.
Of course, we have to find out if Tommy IS a Republican...lol.
If its Rudy or Fred, then one should select the other to unite the party.
Reagan did it with H.W. Bush [after an awkward attempt at Ford] and the rest is history.
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.