Three GOP candidates considering Tommy Franks for VP?

posted at 5:01 pm on August 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

I don’t know what’s more alarming, the fact that they’re so dim to public sentiment about the war that they’d consider putting one of its architects on the ticket or the fact that they think Texas might be in play next year and need him as an insurance policy. Surely also-rans like Brownback and Hunter aren’t so far in denial about their chances that they’d be thinking about running mates, so it’s got to be three of these five: Rudy, Romney, McCain, Fred, and Huckabee. Probably the first three, just because they’re suspect for one reason or another among conservatives and could use some of Franks’s deep red state appeal. That’ll shore up the gimme states, but in the battlegrounds the Iraq association could be toxic — unless the nominees are already planning to shift away from the war and want Franks on board for when they do to act as a military shield and insulate them from criticism among the base.

It’s not a completely horrendous idea for Mitt but Rudy and McCain are both so hawkish that running with a general would make a lot of independents leery about militarization. Not sure what they’re thinking here.

Meanwhile, Politico says Fred! Fred… has about three weeks after he declares to make a go of it financially. If he can’t and he’s still scrounging for cash come October 1 with the first primaries possibly just 10-12 weeks away, he’s on life support. He’s already making friends in New Hampshire, in fact, by ducking the September 5 Fox debate:

New Hampshire Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen said he is “disappointed” that Fred Thompson will apparently not appear a party-sponsored debate next week…

“I think they are making a tactical mistake and a strategic mistake by not participating in the debate. I hope they change their mind and if they do we will rearrange the stage,” Cullen said. “I am reminded of 1999 when Governor Bush skipped the Dartmouth debate in October. They sent some message about the imperial campaign. I think the Bush campaign would trace their unraveling in New Hampshire with their decision to blow off that debate.”

Bush did okay in the end. But then, he was working with pros.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If I was a Prez candidate, looking for a VPrez candidate, I’d pick up that “i survived roe. v. wade” girly over there ———————–>

How could I lose?

OhEssYouCowboys on August 31, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Can we please pick a VP candidate that you wouldn’t mind running in the future for President?

Tommy Franks isn’t winning any national elections on his own.

gabriel sutherland on August 31, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Meanwhile, Politico says Fred! Fred

You’ve captured my sentiment exactly AP.

Free Constitution on August 31, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Okay, I’m at this point after Wesley Clark…

Why does being a military general automatically make you viable for the presidency? Particularly after the last several years of public whining about nearly every military tactic used to gain an edge in our multiple conflicts?

MadisonConservative on August 31, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Hey AP, Franks is an Okie! No matter how long we spend in Texas, we would never consider ourselves one. ;-p

RiteWingFascist on August 31, 2007 at 5:12 PM

After the admission that we went into Iraq without enough troops [thus, the need for a "surge"], and after Tora Bora, a Republican picking a general as a running mate would be like Bill Clinton choosing Heidi Fleiss.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 31, 2007 at 5:21 PM

The backlash against Fred was inevitable, but it’s just tiresome at this point. He’s taken about the same amount of time as other candidates to formally announce, the problem is all the other candidates went along with this idiotic early campaign crap. The “hurry up and announce” meme is just the fallback post for people who don’t have anything else to write about.

forged rite on August 31, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Someday they will get one of those crusty old senior enlisted chiefs that spent thirty plus years representing the interests of the enlisted folks. Much of which included low pay, high ops tempos, etc. Believe me they will connect with much of the active duty and retired more than most generals could. You would get the real “straight talk” express.
I’m not knocking the Generals, most are honorable and good people. but somewhere around the 25 year point in their career there are so many levels between them and the junior officers and enlisted corp, they tend to lose touch with some of the everyday things that is part of the enlisted experience. That’s why they rely on their senior enlisted so much.

Bradky on August 31, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Well there are worse choice for VP than Franks. Michael Vick, Rossie O’Donnell and Larry Craig come to mind.

Seriously, Franks is an honorable guy and all but this would be one of the dumbest ideas imaginable. Aside from his radioactivity with independents, the guy’s got no political base and no campaign experience.

But other than that he’s perfect!

Drew on August 31, 2007 at 6:02 PM

I’m not sure why we are so down on ’08. Doesn’t guiliani lead most head to heads against clinton? If he’s not our nominee (and I’m not supporting him), I don’t like our chances much, but still.

lorien1973 on August 31, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Somebody mentioned Michael Steele the other day for VP with whomever wins the Rep. nomination. Still can’t think why that wouldn’t be a good idea.

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Meanwhile, Politico says Fred! Fred… has about three weeks after he declares to make a go of it financially. If he can’t and he’s still scrounging for cash come October 1 with the first primaries possibly just 10-12 weeks away, he’s on life support. He’s already making friends in New Hampshire, in fact, by ducking the September 5 Fox debate:

I’m not ready to paint any predictions with what has worked in past primaries. This election cycle, I think, is going to be one where many previous S.O.P’s are thrown out the window. And this isn’t exclusive to Fred!, it applies to all the candidates. I’m still on a “wait and see” approach. ALl these predictions of “if he doesn’t raise this much by this time and goes to this debate,” are based on some assumptions that are poised to go away with this election.

Weight of Glory on August 31, 2007 at 6:06 PM

I’m not sure why we are so down on ‘08

Me either. I think it’s because there are two ways of looking at the Dem. field.

#1. OMG. They are far left dangerous nutballs. We’re dead.

#2. OMG. They are far left dangerous nutballs. How lucky for us. They can’t possibly win.

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Yes scary but less scary than when they were talking about Jeb Bush for VP

400lb Gorilla on August 31, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Also, I can’t remember, but how much of what was disliked about post invasion Iraq can fall at the feet of Franks? Wasn’t he already gone when the wheels started to come off? I thought that this Franks idea is being tossed around due to the idea of a Colin Powell VP for Clinton. That would be a hard ticket to beat on the face of it. I don’t have any stories that say anything to that effect, but I have thought of it before as a good way to moderate the ticket if Hillary were to win the nomination.

Weight of Glory on August 31, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Also, I can’t remember, but how much of what was disliked about post invasion Iraq can fall at the feet of Franks? Wasn’t he already gone when the wheels started to come off?

Well, wasn’t the whole “race to Baghdad” approach of fighting the war his idea? Maybe it would have been a better idea to take your time getting there and kill more of the bad guys instead of bypassing them and hoping they would just go away after Saddam’s regime fell.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Maybe it would have been a better idea to take your time getting there and kill more of the bad guys instead of bypassing them and hoping they would just go away after Saddam’s regime fell.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 6:18 PM

True, but even the worst of the post invasion violence was in and around Baghdad, which was at the end of the line, not the middle or the beginning. Regardless, it would be interesting if our guy were to run with Frank; because in reality any Republican politician from senator to local dog catcher, who supported the war, is going to be painted as the war-hawk neo-con who was blind to the failures of Iraq, and the line “do you want change or more of the same” is going to be used every single day no matter the running mate.

Weight of Glory on August 31, 2007 at 6:25 PM

Let us not be so defeatist and let us nominate someone who can put some Blue states (NY, NJ, CT., FL, OH, PA.) into play. Rudolph Giuliani.

Hilts on August 31, 2007 at 6:35 PM

True, but even the worst of the post invasion violence was in and around Baghdad, which was at the end of the line, not the middle or the beginning.

Most of it was there, because that’s where we decided most of it would be.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Hilts on August 31, 2007 at 6:35 PM

I’m a conservative in NY (yeah, I’m it.) Anecdotally, I don’t think too many people here would vote for Giuliani over Clinton. Even if the outcome is closer, it’s mostly winner take all in the electoral vote.

Not sure about those other states.

Could Giuliani actually lose a red state?

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Let us not be so defeatist and let us nominate someone who can put some Blue states (NY, NJ, CT., FL, OH, PA.) into play. Rudolph Giuliani.

Hilts on August 31, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A draft-dodging RINO ain’t what we need right now.

Hollowpoint on August 31, 2007 at 6:53 PM

The sources, who are well placed in Republican circles, did not identify the campaigns that are considering Gen. Franks.

Newsflash: this is a giant load of crap.

There is no such thing as a central GOP Vice Presidential clearinghouse. If Gertz doesn’t know the candidates his “anonymous sources” work for, he doesn’t know anything.

I think it’s about fifty years past the time where every adult American should understand that the words “anonymous source” and “imaginary friend” usually mean exactly the same thing, and should be treated with exactly the same credibility.

logis on August 31, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Let us not be so defeatist and let us nominate someone who can put some Blue states (NY, NJ, CT., FL, OH, PA.) into play. Rudolph Giuliani.
Hilts on August 31, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. A draft-dodging RINO ain’t what we need right now.
Hollowpoint on August 31, 2007 at 6:53 PM

1) If a Republican candidate needs a VP to help him beat Hillary in Texas, he’s pretty much written off the other 49 states.

2) If we try to pick a candidate to “move to the left” to beat hillary (and presumably her third-party strawman), we might not even win ONE state.

logis on August 31, 2007 at 7:01 PM

I’ve been advocating Tommy Franks for VP for months, but I didn’t think that anybody was listening.

He was smart enough to retire from the Army before Bush decided to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

Over hill, over dale
As we hit the dusty trail,
And the Caissons go rolling along.
In and out, hear them shout,
Counter march and right about,
And the Caissons go rolling along.

Then it’s hi! hi! hee!
In the field artillery,
Shout out your numbers loud and strong,
For where’er you go,
You will always know
That the Caissons go rolling along.

MB4 on August 31, 2007 at 7:12 PM

I don’t know what’s more alarming, the fact that they’re so dim to public sentiment about the war that they’d consider putting one of its architects on the ticket

Tommy Franks was the architect of the invasion (the very successful part), not of the tar baby neocon nation building (the very unsuccessful part). Why do you think he left the Army when he did?

MB4 on August 31, 2007 at 7:18 PM

He was smart enough to retire from the Army before Bush decided to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

It was never a complete victory to begin with… too much importance was placed on toppling the regime as quickly as possible and ending major combat operations as quickly as possible. That was the perfect setup for the guerrilla war that followed.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 7:24 PM

unless the nominees are already planning to shift away from the war

Rudy, Mitt and Fred already have, although it has been nuanced. If they don’t even more it will be CIC HildaBeast™ come January 2009.

MB4 on August 31, 2007 at 7:30 PM

That was the perfect setup for the guerrilla war that followed.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Not if we had gotten out, then any “guerrilla war” wouldn’t have been our problem. There may not even have been that much of a “guerrilla war” if Bremer hadn’t fired the Iraqi army in mass.

MB4 on August 31, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Not if we had gotten out, then any “guerrilla war” wouldn’t have been our problem.

How would it not be our problem if we simply walked away and allowed the remnants of Saddam’s regime to immediately seize power after our “victory”?

There may not even have been that much of a “guerrilla war” if Bremer hadn’t fired the Iraqi army in mass.

And there may not have been much of one had we been a little less concerned with declaring victory and a little more concerned with actually achieving it. This is what happens when you try to fight a war on politically correct terms.

Watcher on August 31, 2007 at 9:30 PM

JC Watts.

Weber48IDA on August 31, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Now that’s one Midland boy (Native Midland boy by the way, unlike GB) that I can get behind. A perfect VP.

No AP, Texas is not in play, and that is not the only consideration when picking a VP. Perhaps for once we should consider a man’s moral conviction an duty to country.

conservnut on August 31, 2007 at 11:33 PM

For VP you gotta think 2016 (or 2012 if the unspeakable happens).

Mojave Mark on September 1, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Tancredo-Hunter doesn’t have any room for a Franks.

The military guys, since Eisenhower, haven’t been doing very well.

Blip.

profitsbeard on September 1, 2007 at 2:58 AM

Somebody mentioned Michael Steele the other day for VP with whomever wins the Rep. nomination. Still can’t think why that wouldn’t be a good idea.

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Yep, he sounds very good to me too. Or Duncan Hunter

Could Giuliani actually lose a red state?

JiangxiDad on August 31, 2007 at 6:45 PM

He could lose a lot of Southern states with his gun control stance. A lot of people I know would sit out the election. I won’t, because the stakes are much too high to allow “her majesty” to reign, but a lot of people take seriously our right to keep and bear arms.

Texas Nick 77 on September 1, 2007 at 8:23 AM

Tommy Franks was the architect of the invasion (the very successful part), not of the tar baby neocon nation building (the very unsuccessful part). Why do you think he left the Army when he did?

MB4 on August 31, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Very true, after Afghanistan, Franks wanted out, but Rummy and Bush wanted him to stay on for Iraq. They reached the compromise that Franks would stay in charge for the invasion, but let the next guy handle the reconstruction. I don’t blame Franks for making this deal, I blame Rummy for accepting it, probably thinking that reconstruction would be so easy a caveman could do it.

Although I do belive he did overthink the invasion. His whole, “I’m going to make Saddam think I’m coming in from Turkey by keeping the 4th Infantry Division loaded on ships” was like Kasparov playing chess with a fifth grader (or a contestant on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader).

I personally would like to see Hunter get VP slot from one of the front runners.

BohicaTwentyTwo on September 1, 2007 at 9:26 AM

I would vote for Gen “pooh” in a second!

abinitioadinfinitum on September 1, 2007 at 1:05 PM

If it’s true that some of the frontrunners are looking at Franks, it’s because most of them don’t have any military experience of their own. Voters (myself included) are likely to be wary of a Commander in Chief who’s never even given a salute unless he was in Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts, as the case may be). They probably think Franks would help offset the fact that they themselves are not really qualified to lead the military in a time of war. Except for McCain, of course–I doubt he’s one of the ones looking at Franks for that reason.

aero on September 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM

As for Texas being in play, it’s not (I’m sure you were being facetious, AP). You can tell by the fact that only Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are bothering to show up for the Texas Straw Poll. None of them care about Texas because we’ll be voting so “late” (compared to most of the rest of the states) that most of the candidates will be out of the race long before we go to the polls. And whichever one of them gets the nomination can count on Texas to support them in the general without a doubt. They don’t have to schmooze us, and they know it.

They’ll be sorry if Texas suddenly moves it’s primary to one week from now, preempting anyone’s opportunity to leapfrog us without a time machine. Ha! Now that would be funny!

aero on September 1, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I personally would like to see Hunter get VP slot from one of the front runners.

BohicaTwentyTwo on September 1, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter…Oh yea baby…

doriangrey on September 1, 2007 at 2:09 PM

The winning combination is..Mitt & Condi..And please don’t tell me about past baggage when you have a Clinton in first place in the polls. The Dims don’t care you see. And we shouldn’t be concerned either..CNN just a few minutes ago showed the most powerful women in the world..Condi was 1st in 04 & 05 and slipped down to 2nd in 06 and 4th in 07.(down only because of the war). You pull in the AfricanAmerican vote, a lot more women votes. And thats all its about,,votes.. GWB only won by 100,000 or so votes, so thats how close these races are nowadays. Little too early to be talking VP. I really don’t think Micheal Steele is going to bring in 1/2 the votes a Condi would and thats all we care about is winning. We need our dam FENCE and we are going to get open borders for LIFE if the Dims Dims Dims win win win.

Legions on September 1, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I really don’t think Micheal Steele is going to bring in 1/2 the votes a Condi would and thats all we care about is winning. We need our dam FENCE and we are going to get open borders for LIFE if the Dims Dims Dims win win win.

Why do you assume that Condi wouldn’t want to give you open borders for life, too? What use are poll numbers if you don’t know where she stands on anything? You need to start caring about more than just winning for the sake of winning alone, or you will end up with a lose-lose situation.

Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Come on Watcher, its a nice long holiday weekend here. Inbetween cutting the grass and the BBQ, I’m having a little fun here posting. Nothing serious OK. Its way too early for a VP candidate to tell us about their positions on the border issue. We won’t know until we have a VP nominee. We 1st have to get the Pres. nominee’s. After watching Condi all these years now, I can for sure tell you she is 100% loyal to whoever she is working for. Even a Trancedo. I am sure she has made remarks in GWB’s behalf on his open border policy, doesn’t mean anything, just like Tony Snow, he just says what the Pres. wants him to say..is it his own personable view, only he would know.

Legions on September 1, 2007 at 8:15 PM

You need to start caring about more than just winning for the sake of winning alone, or you will end up with a lose-lose situation.

Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

To tell you the truth, thats all I do care about is winning. Sorry. On election night I only want to see RED

Legions on September 1, 2007 at 8:30 PM

I also would like to say for the GOP just to survive in the future it will need to make some kind of an alliance with the AfricanAmerican voters. The White vote will no longer be enough to win against the Dims. The Dims are grouping together a winning formula with the White/Hispanic/AfricanAmer. voters. No way is the GOP going anywhere without bringing in an AfricanAmerican on the ticket. And it has to be in 08. If we lose in 08, then Hillary or Osama give amnesty to 20 million more of their voters and game over for everyone here at HotAir.

Legions on September 1, 2007 at 9:09 PM