Bill Gertz reports:
Three of the eight announced 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are considering retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks as their pick for vice presidential candidate, according to Republican Party operatives.
Gen. Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command until he retired in 2003, orchestrated the military campaign that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
The choice of Gen. Franks as vice president would be a direct affront to antiwar Democrats, who plan to make opposition to the Bush administration’s handling of the war the main plank of their campaign platforms.
A staunch Republican, Gen. Franks hails from Oklahoma but considers Texas his home state. Having him on the ticket would boost Republican prospects in the must-win Lone Star state.
The sources, who are well placed in Republican circles, did not identify the campaigns that are considering Gen. Franks. They said Gen. Franks’ consideration also is based on his potential to draw votes in the South, and his role as an eloquent spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism.
It would be a very gutsy move by any GOP nominee to select someone with such a large role in the execution of the Iraq war as Gen. Franks. It seems counterintuitive, with the conventional wisdom being that the eventual GOP nominee should run like hell from any association with the Bush Administration.
It makes me wonder who the three campaigns could be… My first guess would be Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. I would not include Romney in my guess, as it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone but Sen. Jim DeMint being Mitt’s running mate should he win the nomination.
Franks makes the most sense for both Rudy and McCain. As Gertz notes, Franks would “check the box” in satisfying the need for a Southerner on the ticket while not being known as very ideological on social issues. Neither Rudy or McCain have shied away from Iraq in any way, shape, or form during the campaign so far. So there is no reason to believe they would be afraid of meeting this issue head-on during the general.
As for Thompson, he is the biggest wild-card here. It’s fairly easy to imagine Thompson making the gutsy decision to include Franks on the ticket despite the fact they are both Southerners and doing so would make the execution of the Iraq War a germane issue as he was directly involved in its execution.
Besides, Thompson has basically played Gen. Franks at least twice on the big screen. So perhaps he figures it’s time he served as his understudy.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
This would be a horrible choice in the general election. Democrats would be all over the failures in the initial years of the Iraq war, which Tommy Franks had a hand in. This is not the right idea guys.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Go for Abizaid, even Pete Pace would be a better pick than this guy.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Tommy Franks is building a home in Oklahoma not Texas and is working out of Oklahoma.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I doubt the Thompson camp is spreading those rumors. They’ve still got to shine through this next month, while the other campaigns have had plenty of time to actually feel out the dynamics of the election cycle and start seriously contemplating veeps. Plus you tend to pick someone who adds something to the campaign, not redundancy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Romney camp is one of them. Romney also needs a southerner, and someone to burnish his national security cred. All three, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are pretty much on the same page policy-wise, but Romney seems to need the most help in being taken seriously on that front.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
this really makes me wonder how competent our republicans running are. are they kidding?
August 31st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Not a chance in you know where.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I don’t buy it. Tommy Franks is the man who according to conventional wisdom failed to plan for the occupation after the fall of Baghdad. He is also very identified with the current administration thus providing the dimocrit Bush bashers with a wide assortment of attack options.
The VP will be Mike Huckabee, mark my words. He is perfect for either of the likely nominees (Romney, Giuliani). Hillary is very competitive in Arkansas and Mike will keep it red. He has impeccable socon credentials and is a Baptist minister thus providing balance to the Mormon\Catholic issue. Huckabee is also a great communicator and has no personal baggage.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Interesting choice….not sure wheter the effect would be postive or negative, but it would be gutsy. Thompson would probably consider it, and my guess is Giuliani an McCain might also. I agree that Romney probably has someone more like DeMint in mind. Huackabee could also use someone to bolster his national security//foreign policy credentials, and someone like Duncan Hunter would probably float the idea as well…only issue there is that I doubt Hunter is in a position to be picking runing mates.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I agree with Kavon’s assessment on this issue, though for different reasons. Forst, I think Romney is entirely too savvy to do anything as boneheaded as trying to cast himself as an agent of change, while selecting Franks, a symbol of the very enterprise most people want to change. Second, Romney’s quite a big fan of Cobra II, perhaps the definitive book on the Iraq War (in the sense that it’s fairly unemotional, well-researched, comprehensive, and relatively even-handed). To say that Cobra II isn’t kind to Franks is an understatement. He’s also frequently mentioned The Assassin’s Gate, another book with no love for Franks. I also disagree that McCain would have anything to do with Franks. When McCain was criticizing the Pentagon’s strategy for years, and the troop levels, he was really critizing Franks. And it’s not as though McCain needs the foreign policy bonafides Franks MIGHT provide a candidate. Rudy, Thompson, and Huckabee seem like the most likely prospects among the top 5.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Franks? I wouldn’t count out Romney. He was my first guess. I understand where you’re coming from with DeMint, but Romney’s biggest weakness is his complete lack of credibility from experience on foreign policy. In 2008, post 9/11, especially if you’re going to be defending keeping troops in Iraq, an outstanding and articulate four star general at his side would give him that credibility. I thought it was going to be Richard Meyers, but he’s been virtually absent in the political sphere as of late. Meyers is also linked to the failures in Iraq given his tenure during the depths of this war’s unpopularity. Franks was the wildly successful and still beloved in certain audiences, general who left before the major problems set in.
Some may scoff at “certain audiences” given that President Bush can still find a few beloved fans, but Franks is held in very, very high regard among the military, and would give any Democrat a hard time in claiming that their “supporting the troops” by forcing a retreat. There would be many, many servicemen who would come to his side.
I’m not saying I think it will be Romney/Franks, but I would not rule it out, or its political strengths.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I would think if Franks was going to help anyone it would be Romney. I don’t see how a Southern would help Thompson swing the souther n Vote. I don’t think Giuliani is looking for Terrorist credentials. And McCain certainly isn’t looking for military credentials.
But I hope Romney isn’t considering him. I am still hoping for Palin we need a beauty ticket.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
By the way, Kavon, did you see my replies to you about why Sansonetti moved the Wyoming Primary?
August 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
That’s so funny that this story would come out today of all days, because I’ve been pondering who the Republican nominee will tap for VP, and up until today, it had never occurred to me that it might be a military leader, and not a politician. Then I get online and this article is up.
I agree that Franks would probably be a bad choice. If Iraq gets to a point where Gen. Petraeus can comfortably leave it in good shape (and in good hands), I would say Petraeus would be an awesome choice for GOP VP (assuming he’s good on the social, which all four of the Republican frontrunners need to assuage socon voters on; I’m not sure where the Gen. stands on those things). Petraeus is widely respected across the aisle, and is seen as the guy who finally got things to work in Iraq. He would be a perfect fit for a Republican nominee taking on a Democratic nominee claiming that victory in Iraq is unachievable.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
We should not be considering this man. He’s served his country well but a potential VP he is not.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
JS,
Again, I’ve heard that Petraeus is a Democrat.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Kavon-
I’ve long though Huck could be Romney’s Veep. It’s looking less likely though as huck actually
climbs in the polls and may start attacking Mitt.
-Phil
August 31st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
We don’t have to worry about who Romney’s VEEP would be – - he wont be the nominee.
Giuliani’s VEEP will be Sanford
August 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Franks, would be a great addition to the next administration, but probably not in the veep slot with its legislative responsibilities. I would suggest him for Secretary of Defence (and he could still add a little to a ticket in that way, just like everybody KNEW that Bush would make Powell Sed. of State) .
KT, not seeing Giuliani-Sanford happening. Giuliani-Huckabee maybe, but not Giuliani-Sanford. Of course, Giuliani-Palin is preferable for me (Or Thompson-Palin, or Romney-Palin, etc.)
August 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Y’all really…Must. Be. Kidding.
As a Dem, all I can say is please, please, please.
Lets have the first month of the post-convention campaign be focused on an in-depth analysis of the preparations made for the war.
And lets have the GOP propose, that if anything were to happen to the next President, we would end up with a general as president – one who has zero experience, and no obvious inclination to being a political leader.
General Franks may be a profoundly honorable man, and good at his life’s calling. But the presidency does happen to be a specific job, requiring a specific set of skills, and there is no evidence he has any of them.
Including, of course, the requisite perspective to be the CIVILIAN head of the military.
This smacks of absolute desparation.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Tano’s right, we all know what a failure running Dwight D. Eisenhower was.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“General Franks may be a profoundly honorable man, and good at his life’s calling. But the presidency does happen to be a specific job, requiring a specific set of skills, and there is no evidence he has any of them.
Including, of course, the requisite perspective to be the CIVILIAN head of the military”
Tano, sorry but I have to dispute your “generals can’t be presidents” argument… you seem to be neglecting George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower among others (and I’d be interested to see if you use the same argument in regards to a Dem General like Wesley Clark). Now I’m not plugging Franks for VP or President at the moment, but if he wants to jump in at some point in the future, more power to him.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Palin4VP, I think Giuliani-Sanford is FAR more likely than Giuliani-Huckabee. Critics are going to try to nitpick at Giuliani’s anti-terror/fiscal credentials, since he’s made that the centerpiece of his campaign, and Huckabee is weak on both (alarmingly so on fiscal issues–those CFG and CATO reports are like bad stains that just won’t wash away). Also, like I’ve said before, Huckabee is the champion of all things FairTax and Rudy doesn’t think the FairTax is realistic at this point in time. You can’t have a ticket with the VP wanting to completely restructure the American economic system, and the P saying it wouldn’t work.
I agree Palin might be a very good choice. I hadn’t heard anything about Petraeus being a Dem, but if that’s true, then never mind considering him. We should also keep our eye on Bobby Jindal, and, of course, never let Charlie Crist out of our sight.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Steve, Palin,
Where did I say that “generals cant be presidents”?
Why not react to what I actually wrote, rather than to what you want to argue against?
I said Tommy Franks has shown no evidence of any political leadership skills. I said nothing about generals, in general.
In addition to military positions that were at an extraordinarily high level – including a lot of diplomacy and other non-military factors, Ike was also the president of Columbia university before becoming president. He demonstrated skills that went far beyond purely military skills. Plus he was Ike.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
#31 As one of AK’s newest residents I am all for Sarah Palin serving in a higher office. But not in 2008. Firstly, I don’t want her leaving AK just yet – we need her here for a while. Second, she’ll have less than two years of experience as Governor by the time the ’08 election takes place. Before that her only political experience, beyond serving on a couple commissions and boards, was serving as mayor of the growing community of Wasilla AK (population still less than 5500). Gov. Palin needs to build up her resume as Governor for a few more years. Then, with Ted Stevens in trouble and Lisa Murkowski down in the polls, Palin has a chance to run for Senate in a few years if she wants. She’s only in her early 40s, so she’s got plenty of time before she needs to enter presidential politics.
However once she does, count me in as an early and enthusiastic supporter.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
#31??? I meant that to be addressed to #18 (Palin 4 VP!). Not sure where I got 31.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Kavon,
It won’t be Tommy Franks.
Rudy’s VP should be Condi or Jeb Bush but it will probably be Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, John Kyl, Mike Pence or Kay Bailey Hutchison.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
No one will pick Condi for VP (too much baggage, and not exactly a Conservative), and Jeb Bush’s only problem is his last name which will prevent him from ever seeing the Whitehouse for the forseeable future. For what it’s worth, I’ve been pushing for Kay Bailey Hutchison for VP for quite a while. Her downsides are minor but still there: Not a diehard pro-lifer, and her age (currently 64, she’d be 73 in 2012, to old to succeed the pres).
August 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Flap,
No offense, and with all due respect because I like your blog, but you named a lot of horrible, unrealistic choices for VP.
Condi would be a bad choice for VP for the same reason Tommy Franks would: tied to the original mistakes of the Bush administration and endless footage of Condi promoting pre-war bad intel. Also, she wants to go back to Stanford. Jeb Bush would be a bad choice for VP for the same reason George W. Bush would: last name.
A Rudy-Huckabee ticket wouldn’t make sense. Huckabee weakens Rudy’s centerpiece issues of toughness on terror and fiscal discipline, and the FairTax issue would pit the two against each other on the campaign trail. Mike Pence is a mere Representative, and while he’s a great one, members of the House of Representative are rarely considered as a running mate, with good reason. Sen. Hutchison has a less than spotless record on life issues and affirmative action, and isn’t so good on alternative energy (which won’t play so well with the Midwest).
Pawlenty and Kyl are a couple of exceptions. Kyl isn’t so good on the alternative energy issue either (Midwest factor again) and Rudy and Kyl would have to smooth out their difference on gay marriage (Kyl favors federal amendment, Rudy favors federalism). Pawlenty might be a top pick for Rudy if he weren’t so bad on campaign finance reform.
I maintain that Crist and Palin are going to be the ones to keep an eye on.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
What about Bill Bennet as a Veep? I saw the idea floated over on the corner….
August 31st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I think the Republican nominee will want to capitalize on experience, experience, experience in 2008, because that will be a major attack line against the Democratic nominee (if it’s Hil, Obama, or Edwards, which it probably will be), and Bill Bennett, who served a mere few years as SecEd, doesn’t really do much to reinforce that as a core reason to vote for the GOP ticket.
Also, I don’t think talk radio pundits will make very good candidates in this age. They tend to veer to the hard right, be unapologetic to the pont of offense, and turn off Middle America. Also, being in that kind of position gives one a storehouse of show transcripts full of all kinds of controversial statements. There’s just too much risk involved.
I’d say, stick with a tested and proven executive leader.
September 1st, 2007 at 12:11 am
I would not include Romney in my guess, as it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone but Sen. Jim DeMint being Mitt’s running mate should he win the nomination.
I doubt Sen. DeMint is tapped for VP. He’s the spearhead for the conservative movement in the Senate and is needed there. Plus he’s probably just too conservative for national office.