Vice President Franks?
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In today's Washington Times "Inside The Ring" column Bill Gertz reports three Republican presidential candidates are considering retired Army General Tommy Franks as a vice presidential running mate.
General Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command from June 2000 until he retired in 2003, led American and Coalition troops in two strategically unprecedented campaigns in two years – Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
Franks would boost Republican prospects in the South and provide an articulate spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism and a counter to the Democrats' current defeatism:
All Democratic candidates overtly oppose the Iraq war and most favor ending the Bush administration's military and paramilitary emphasis on fighting global terrorism. A Democratic administration in 2009 likely would restore the approach of the Clinton administration, which favored law enforcement and diplomacy over military action.
Reviving those failed Clinton policies will only bring us more terrorist attacks such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1995 bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the 1996 bobming of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemen, and 9/11.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Maybe they'll make Sen Edwards the next DNC chair. — Comments (8) »
Vice President Franks? 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is so weird, because just this morning in the shower I was thinking about who would be a great VP candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination.
Thompson is too old and we already have Tennessee, McCain is too old and would upset the conservatives, Huckabee is a Preacher and might not win Arkansas. Romney won't even win Massachusetts.
So, I thought "how about Tommy Franks winning Florida or General David Petraeus with his Princeton PHD?"
I like the cut of that jib.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Franks comes off looking... not so good. And that's a very popular book right now. And despite its clear biases its an interesting read. While it clearly cherry picks opinions that back it's premise, I can't say the observations and conclusions aren't compelling.
Point being, history may not be kind to the old-style campaigns that stunningly captured, but also tended to destabilize, both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The question is: Are we sure he's as good as he says he is? Or might he in the end be associated with the mistakes in the war that Petraeus is now fixing?
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Not once, but twice. The shame.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
If someone does choose him as VP, I sure hope they test his debating skills first. Nightmare images of James Stockdale come to mind.
...from Phil Hartman at SNL took place while wearing the white wig and glasses. Asked at the beginning of a "Best-of-Political-Skits" SNL clip show by Dana Carvey/Ross Perot to explain just what the program was all about, Hartman/Stockdale got all wide-eyed and yelled, "SKETCHES!!!!! on...VIDEOtape.......from.......before......."
Classic.
I am one that hopes we don't end up with two white males on the ticket. I know that people will jump up and down and say that the nominee should pick the 'best' person regardless of race or gender, but really there is no 'best' - there is a decent sized pool of qualified people for VP. I don't think you should pick someone unqualified, but I don't think that anyone can argue that the only qualified people right now are white males.
in one posting? That was amazing.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I don't think you're racist to hope that the final ticket is not two white males. Your hope is reasonable and understandable.
I think we ought to judge our nominees not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
...but if that quote is somehow supposed to make me think that GreatDarkSpot is racist because he/she hopes that the GOP ticket isn't (yawn) two white males...it failed miserably.
Hoping that a woman, or black, or Hispanic, or (fill in the blank) is on a presidential ticket is hardly racist (or sexist).
is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." The poster displays prejudice against white males by implying that it would be better if both sides of the ticket were not white males. What is wrong with having two white males on the ticket? What if I said "It would be best to not have two blacks on the ticket"? Would you not tar and feather me as a racist?
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
nor do I know that he/she isn't a racist. I merely stated that hoping that the ticket isn't two white males is not, in my opinion, a reliable indicator of racism.
If GDS doesn't want two whites because he/she doesn't like whites or thinks they're inferior (because they're white), then that would be evidence (proof) of racism.
If, on the other hand, GDS hopes for something other than what every other major party presidential ticket in US history, save one, has been, because he/she thinks there are qualified non-white, non-male candidates (or even wishes there were) who could reasonably be on the ticket, then nope, I don't see that as racist.
Personally, I'd love for the US to elect a woman as president -- not because I think white males can't do the job (historically we have mixed evidence on that question), but because I'd like the presidency (and vice-presidency) to be open to every qualified person, regardless of sex (or race). Until a woman or non-white is actually elected, we can't say that is the case.
However, much as I'd like a woman to be elected, I'm not going to vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman (or a member of any group); otherwise I'd be voting for Clinton, and that isn't going to happen.
Reldim (below) points out the practical problem: who could reasonably fulfill GDS's hope? Right now, there is no prominent non-white, non-male who has expressed any interest in being on the Republican ticket.
So, GDS's hope may be impractical, but I don't think it's a sign of racism.
What if I said "It would be best to not have two blacks on the ticket"? Would you not tar and feather me as a racist?
First, one always has to be careful about interchanging dominant and minority races (or sexes) as if that creates a perfect analogy. In an ideal world it might, but in our world it doesn't. Would I "tar and feather (racially charged language) you as a racist?" No. In fact, in today's United States, from the standpoint of electoral strategy, it would self-evidently be best for both major parties to "not have two blacks on the ticket." To argue otherwise is just silly. We've never elected a single black to either the presidency or vice-presidency. I may be wrong, but I'm extremely skeptical that in 2008 this country would suddenly embrace (i.e., elect) a ticket that had both slots filled with blacks.
If Obama wins the Dem nomination, does anyone think that there is any chance that he would select a black running mate? Is there any (serious) political consultant who would recommend that he do so? Of course not. In fact, as a black male, he'd probably have little "choice" but to pick a white male as his running mate. That wouldn't be racism, it would be practical electoral politics.
What is wrong with having two white males on the ticket?
Answer: a) Nothing; b) It's boring; c) It's been done before; d) Wouldn't it be nice to try something new and different?
You don't have to think another race is inferior to be racist or to discriminate against someone based on race.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
my previous post held out the possibility of someone being racist without believing the target group was "inferior."
Perhaps I'm not operating under your definition of racism, but my point was and is simple: I don't think (opinion!) that GDS's wish for something other than "two white males" was in and of itself racist. If you don't agree with that, you're entitled to your opinion. But, as painful as it may be, it is just that, an opinion.
I've lived long enough, in enough circumstances (among them an overtly racist mother and a closet-racist father) to recognize the existence of racism. However, to believe that anyone who expresses a desire for a more diverse ticket is a racist -- after more than two centuries of white male presidents -- is
not something I can take seriously.
Since we're dealing in opinions, and I've expressed mine, and you've expressed yours, I'd say this topic is pretty well exhausted.
of people you think might be qualified, or is this just an academic wishlist?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
in an earlier post:
Reldim (below) points out the practical problem: who could reasonably fulfill GDS's hope? Right now, there is no prominent non-white, non-male who has expressed any interest in being on the Republican ticket.
This wasn't about anyone specific, I simply stated that (GDS's) hoping for a ticket with some "variety" was not, in and of itself, racist.
The fact that there appears to be no one raises its own set of provocative questions, which, since I have to leave, I won't be addressing.
And I've got something for everyone because I also happen to be a white male.
Stay tuned. My announcement timing will be after Fred. Make sure and vote in the great Phoenix Straw Poll. More on that later from the fuzzy guy.
Woof!!
Franz' 11th Commandment: If anybody messes with you, kill them and eat them invite them to a State Dinner at the White House
Presidential pose would be appropriate. And don't let the great hair fool you. He is still, pound for pound, the most efficient killing machine on the planet. He just needs a longer bath and more brushing afterwards.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Same nine pounds of incredible dog.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm in the same mindset as Tbone on the pres/running mate front. I think a Fred Thompson/JC Watts ticket would be ideal. And it meets the "no two white males" criteria. I have liked Watts since his days in Congress, and from what I know, I think he'd be a very reliable conservative VP. He's written some good opinion columns recently that reveal some of his positions on politics: http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/JC_Watts.html
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
are not Ivy-Leaguers while the two leading Democrats are. The concept of privilege is highly subjective these days.
And both Southerners and Italians have to cope with their share of prejudice.
If it is not the case that "the only qualified people right now are white males" (and I am not disagreeing with you), perhaps your input would be more helpful if you brainstormed a few of those qualified non-white and/or non-male individuals.
I suppose the perennial name is Condi (both non-white and non-male). Who else should be on that short list of "diverse" candidates? Other than Condi, there are no non-white/non-males "heavy hitters" in the Cabinet (you know, Treasury, State, Defense, Justice, DHS - the "gravitas" agencies). No clear standouts among GOP governors - Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell, I believe, are the only 2 Republican women governors, and neither is exactly going to wow the faithful. And I can't think of any non-white GOP governors (I don't believe we have one).
I know BananaRepublican would put former Reps. Beauprez and Bonilla on the list. But their former House members, and both lost their last elections. They also are legislators and would have to rely on one of the "past-executive" candidates to win the nomination, as I don't think we'll see a double-congressperson ticket. The GOP doesn't really go in for that (Dole-Kemp might qualify, but Kemp did serve in the Cabinet under GHWB before that run - our last all Congress ticket was 1964 Goldwater-Miller - not our most successful outing).
I just don't know who we tap to satisfy the diversity kick.
are white males. On both sides of the divide.
If you want a qualified "NWM" you'll just have to wait until 2016 after Bobby Jindal's second term as Governor of LA.
Don't even try to tell me that Obama or Hildebeast would even be considered were it not for their skin color or gender.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
it is her, how shall we say, "fund-raising" abilities! Lets face it, she has found ways to bring cold hard cash into the political process never before seen in history. AND, of course, if new laws are passed, never seen again!
Not to get too into the Democratic side because I'm not all that interested in them, but why do you say that Bill Richardson would not be qualified to be Prez?
So you think there are some non-whiteguys who are qualified? Who are they? A list of names and the reason you think they're qualified would be a good start. You might want to make it a new blog. It will be interesting.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Didn't mean to set off that firestorm! I'm a white guy myself so I can assure everyone I'm not racist against white males. My hope is mainly political. I think a diverse ticket is good for the GOP from an image standpoint.
Who would I consider as possible VP's who are non white males? Here's just a list off the top of my head. Let me say right away that there is no 'perfect' candidate but that is also the case among the entire field. Everyone has pluses and minuses.
Condi Rice - others have mentioned her of course
Kay Baily Hutchinson - I think she'd be a good balance for Mitt, McCain or Rudy. Less so for Huckabee or Thompson
Olympia Snowe - Only if Brownback or Huckabee gets the nomination. I think they'd need a moderate on the ticket to win, frankly, but she's too moderate to pair up with someone like Rudy.
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of FL. She's be a big help in FL - a big toss-up state and I think she'd also help in NJ - if Rudy was the nominee between the two of them they might even put NY in play.
Colon Powell - I think it's clear he doesn't want it or he'd have jumped before, but he should be considered even if he's taken some damage since 2000
Congressman Eric Cantor of VA - Okay, well he's 'white' but he's also Jewish. I think he's one of the most impressive guys in the house.
Those are just the ones who popped into my head without much thinking about it. There may be more that come to mind after a while. I don't know why everyone got so defensive about my post. To me it just makes good political sense. And as I said, I reject the argument that one must select the 'most qualified' candidate because there is no set definition of 'most qualified'. Choosing the VP is usually a political decision anyway. Bush Jr was one of the rare cases where the VP pick was non political and frankly, I think that nearly cost him the election.
Please God let it be so. It will make it so much easier for a Dem to win in '08.
Ghouliani is one fucking mess of a human
lose the profanity.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
For a Republican, he has his head on straight(better than most of the Dems too) Id almost consider voting for him
She/He/It appears to be vapor.
Another child left behind.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
is keep Franz up to date on Moe's performance, especially with respect to harpooning.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Now anytime someone even mentions Ron Paul you want to get them booted? What I wouldn't do to have him win in NH. Maybe we'll see a cloud of hot air somewhere above Arizona when your head explodes...
The banning really didn't have anything to do with Ron Paul™. PP was a more-or-less typical 25-minute wonder.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
That sounds just like something someone who is afraid of Dr. Paul's ingenious ideas on money and the fractional reserve system would say. You can't hide it! You know you all live in constant fear of Dr. Paul's ideas! (Even if he won't tell us what those ideas are and leaves it up to his disciples to fill in the gaps for him. He's a busy man. Wild shrimp isn't going to subsidize itself!)
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
What do they do when they get wild. We need a federal study on this.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I've referred to Moe. And it had nothing to do with RP. PP was an obvious troll (actually I think Moe got her before I commented, I forgot to check).
I have no problem with RP commenters on Redstate. Most of them are so stupid they're fun to play with. And as far as NH is concerned, I'm on record saying that RP could do OK in NH. It's actually a libertarian not a conservative state and if there's no real contest on the D side I can see big numbers of Massachusetts transplant fruitloops voting in the R primary for RP. Nothing would surprise me coming from NH.
Frankly, if RP won NH going away he is still a phony, still an incompetent Member of the House, and still no more qualified for POTUS than my dead white cat. And he will never be POTUS. Either of them. Hopefully, RP is able to stay in the Presidential Sweeps long enough so that he can't run for Congress again. Either that or our friend, and libertarian, Eric D cleans his worthless clock in the primary.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
won last years election, they would have been great picks for vp.
"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."
-- Milton Friedman
Richard Nixon once said something along the lines of: "A Vice President can never help you; only hurt you."
What was true in 1968 remains true today. The major Republican candidates emphasize their differences with the Bush Administration, stressing they would not have "mismanaged" Iraq. Franks, rightly or wrongly, will be associated with the failure to anticipate the postwar chaos. Selecting him would bring the debacles in the Iraq War to the forefront of public discussion. I'm assuming Romney would be the only major candidate considering Franks, a political novice, for the veep slot.
Are Republican prospects in the South in that bad shape? If they are, we might as well write this election off.
Also, if one general will be on a ticket it will be Wesley Clark.
Tommy's a good guy and all, and I can see him being SecDef or National Security Advisor, but not VP.
Franks was in command when postwar planning was in its infancy. Postwar planning which, you'll recall, became a huge cock-up. You could blame it on Rumsfeld, of course, but I'm starting to visualize the Hillary attack ads and the media tropes, starting with the New York Times investigative series and the hit pieces on the liberal evening news shows.
Believe me, if I'm doing it, Giuliani's advisors are already doing it, too.
However, I half suspect by this time next year, we're all going to be wearing "Draft Petraeus" buttons.
Franks is Meade. He knew how to win a great victory. Petraeus is Grant. He knows how to win a war.
You don't run George Gordon Meade for anything.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
General Franks has been on the Bank of America board of directors since Q4 2005, according to the bank's investor fact books. Given that he was on the board the same time as the stuff hit the fan for the bank servicing customers who may be illegal immigrants, there may be some blowback from the Tancredo crowd.
If you ask me, the Long War is infinitely more important than this specific immigration controversy (especially since other banks did the same thing before BofA with nary a mention), but look for Franks to step down from this board position if he's truly serious.
Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming