Some of my fellow McCainiacs have hypothesized that Gen. Petraeus would be the perfect VP for Sen. McCain.
This move probably puts him off that path, but with the General back in Tampa, Florida heading CentCom, and MoveOn.org's previous smear, this can't be completely nonpolitical...
Thoughts??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Agree this makes it less likely he'll be VP. Mac will have to pick his VP around July. Petraeus will not have even started his role then. Also given the troubles in Afghanistan, Mac shouldn't pull exceptional resources away from the effort before they've had a chance to go to work. Petraeus always represented a double down strategy for Mac - necessary if he was way behind to a seemingly unbeatable candidate (i.e. if Obama wins TX/OH and before all his recent missteps). When Obama (presumably) emerges from the Dem fight, he will be ahead but most likely within 5-10 pts amd with severe weakness among blue collar America. Before I disagreed with Mac's VP emphasis being on shoring up his economic weakness but with this new situation, Mac will benefit from a candidate showing compassion/intellect on the economy along with down-home charm. So I think Lindsey Graham jumps back in to the mix and Sanford is actually the front runner (pigs story and WSJ editorial last wk will show econ credibility, Governor/executive experience, young, southern charm, supposed to be a good guy). To me Rice (too much Bush) and Romney (won't appeal to middle America) are out now. As far as Petraeus, he'll be the frontrunner along with Jeb in 2012 if Mac decides not run for reelection or (gasp) can't pull this one out.
WOW! Quite a full statement...
I disagree with you about Romney... I think he pulls a lot of upper midwest states (Michigan esp.), and helps out west in NM, CO, even WA where this thing will be won against Obama... that's my favorite right now.
Plus, I don't think there's any limit on a VP candidate spending his own $$$$...
Buy Romney positives (especially since we have a real shot at winning Massachusetts(!) even without him). But against Obama the opening will be those middle class Americans he described as "clinging to their guns, religion, etc." And that group will be less inclined to vote for a loaded financial guy that talks to ordinary Americans like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pJWSIqv8NOc
Who let the dogs out?
Yep... that video definitely is not going to help him with urban voters.
But, that's not the group Obama opened up when he made the "guns/religion" statement... it's the folks in Western PA that voted for Clinton yesterday. If they saw the "Who let the dogs out" video on YouTube, the reaction would be a net positive...
I completely forgot about MA... if a Republican wins MA, it's game over... Plus, he'll help in CA as well... they like competent, successful people out there.
certainly mac's not targeting urban voters, that's not what i was referring to - what that comment shows is Romney's discomfort and inability with people in general. i believe romney will make similar stiff, unconnecting statements as who let the dogs out to Western PA gun owners and free trade skeptics as they're outside his comfort zone. he showed no ability at that at all during the campaign.
I hear you on the stiffness and the sometimes discomfort, but this guy was hands down McCain's toughest national rival... he's the most tested, most vetted Republican except for McCain out there right now (save, maybe Huckabee, who for me is a nonstarter)...
He won MA (which Mac has a shot), MI (key state), MN (key for Mac and Norm Coleman), CO (important swing state), and NV (same).
He appeals to an upscale suburban voter that could swing Obama, and also had a stable of top conservative activists that were part of his campaign and are still a little bitter.
My Constitutional Law professor at Pepperdine is a staunch conservative Catholic (20 years a Notre Dame Law), was a key legal advisor to Romney and has now endorsed Obama...
Post a Comment