What do we really know about Patraeus’ politics? He could be another Colin Powell or Weasely Clark.
Patraeus is alleged to have attended the secretive ‘Bilderberg’ meetings for at least the past 3 years.
William G. "Jerry" Boykin would be though:
Anyway, Mitt is NOT going to select a VP for fear that he might find himself standing in his/her shadow; team players or not...
“YES 44.69% (124,342 votes)
NO 37.28% (103,711 votes)
NOT SURE 18.03% (50,151 votes)
Total Votes: 278,204”
No and Not Sure combined of 174,493 beat the Yes vote.
Led by warriors? You're living in the wrong nation, pal.
I'm hoping the VP choice isn't another lawyer from the Harvard/Yale cabal.
Were u happy when John Roberts was appointed?
I was.
Just look who he is, though.
FREEP THIS POLL
I just voted no.
Another stupid idea.
Not nearly as stupid as Rice, for which I am thankful, but still pretty stupid.
Aren’t there any CONSERVATIVES around? Why grasp at moderates/unknowns?
Love the uniform, but....MEH...!
Not Conservative enough to counter the ill-effects of Massachusettes hair helmet.
Sorry —stronger medicine required.
Petraeus works for Obama at the CIA.
Like the top convention speakers, Romeny seems to be rolling out anybody and everyone EXCEPT conservatives. Romeny, you better toe the constitutional, small-government, individual liberty, and property-rights line.
No. He is not a conservative. He went along with Obama’s terrible Rules of Engagement that were responsible for killing and wounding numerous American troops. He went along with numerous other stupid or evil policies, without a peep of objection.
Yes, it’s an officer’s duty to stand by his men. But sometimes the only way of doing so is to resign in protest.
The Surge worked in Iraq, but Petraeus was far to willing to risk our troops so as to butter up our Muslim “allies.”
No. He is not a conservative. He went along with Obama’s terrible Rules of Engagement that were responsible for killing and wounding numerous American troops. He went along with numerous other stupid or evil policies, without a peep of objection.
Yes, it’s an officer’s duty to stand by his men. But sometimes the only way of doing so is to resign in protest.
The Surge worked in Iraq, but Petraeus was far too willing to risk our troops so as to butter up our Muslim “allies.”
Like all good generals, the man hasn’t given a clue to the general population what his political views are.
When Wesley Clark stopped being a general we discovered he was a pretty liberal democrat.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that taking a place in the Obama CIA could mean that we’re dealing with a political twin of Jon Huntsman.
For all I know, though, Petraeus could be a solid conservative.
who cares? the vice president is a mostly worthless position. the problem is the loser running for the main job
Yeah, let’s talk about “Bush’s Wars” some more... that’ll be good for some votes.
No. Generals make lousy politicians.
Just sayin’..........
Romney is considering Petraeus so his campaign can focus on competence and personal achievement as a theme.
This is in stark contrast to Obama’s “amateur” performance and Biden’s, well..., Biden-isms.
If Petraeus is picked before the democrat convention, expect Hillary to get the VP nod. Romney needs to head-fake toward TPaw or Ryan for a few more weeks to prevent this, otherwise, Biden will develop another aneurism and suddenly feel the need to drop out.
Obama should fear Hillary the most. If he is re-elected with her as VP, I bet all of Obama’s records will suddenly appear on wikileaks (or the conservative equivalent) and she will lead the charge to oust him via the 25th Amendment.
Need I remind anybody of Wesley Clark, Obama supporter Colin “he's black like me” Powell, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, & many other Liberal former military men? A military career is no guarantee of a conservative political philosophy.
So, before we endorse this warrior, let's see what political positions he supports.