It was recently reported in the Washington Post that Gen. Tommy Franks, best known for his command in Iraq, is being actively considered as a potential running mate by three Republican candidates. Of course the article doesn’t tell us which three and this early in the election game names are often tossed about and quickly forgotten so skepticism should be applied.

With that in mind there are some interesting politics here as Franks, head of U.S. Central Command and the orchestrator of the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein, would bring some interesting credentials and character to a ticket. It could obviously be taken, as the Post article points out, as 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.”

Franks, who left his position in 2003 to work in the corporate world, could add credibility to any Republican candidate who is serious about pursuing hawkish positions but doesn’t have the experience of command in the military themselves to sell their competence. He might serve to ease the minds of Republican voters who fear that we will enter into another war unprepared.

This is a double edge sword of course as Franks is now almost wholly associated with Iraq in Americans minds. Though the takedown of Saddam’s regime was an early highlight of this War and his command should be applauded, he will easily be linked to the post-Saddam operations. Though the president as command-in-chief takes ultimate responsibility for decisions made, Franks would undoubtedly be hit hard by any opposition over Franks vocal support of the War and his continued assertions that things were going well there.

Military command has often played well for presidential and Vice presidential candidates. Of our presidents some notable are Washington, the first and one of our greatest, who was colonel of the Virginia forces during the French and Indian War and commander-in-chief of the colonial army during the Revolutionary War. Andrew Jackson was a major general of American forces who gained much fame and notiriety for his accomplishments. Dwight David Eisenhower was supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe and the U.S. Army chief of staff. Ulysses S. Grant served the country in the Mexican-American War and the Civil War.

Many others achieved military success such as Zachary Taylor who was a successful colonel becoming a national hero for his service as well as others like Benjamin Harrison and Franklin Pierce. Many other presidents served honorably and fought in wars, though not as many took command.

In our recent history since Dwight D. Eisenhower military command hasn’t seemed as important to voters. Specifically in 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton defeated Bush Sr. & Bob Dole, both veterans and in 2004 George W. Bush defeated John Kerry a veteran of Vietnam and both did so with Vice Presidents who themselves did not serve.

Of our last three Vice presidents Dan Quayle served in the national guard but none of them served the federal military. Bush Sr., Nixon & Gerald Ford (all three would later become Presidents) served but did not command in WW2, Walter Mondale served in the Korean War.

Agnew, Johnson (later a president), Humphrey, Rockefeller and Barkley did not serve. Before them Vice Presidents were a mix giving us little definitive proof that military command or service in general makes for a better ticket.

In 2004 Republicans themselves set the stage for an interesting new phase in military/civilian politics. A theme of discrediting Senator John Kerry, specifically his military experience in Vietnam, was central to the campaign with many even questioning the validity of his receiving purple hearts.

It was an interesting political move for a President and Vice President with no military experience to push forward the idea that they were better to lead American forces then a man who served. It ultimately worked not just with Kerry but with other candidates running against Veterans office. It now sits as a campaigning template that could be used this cycle by Democrats against Franks, if he were to run.

I personally think the stories of Franks consideration may be exaggerated but we shall see. Republicans face an election year where, for the first time in a very long time, their status as the better-at-military party is being questioned. Franks may only serve to hurt that legacy and prove voters are ready to move on. With that said he may be one of their only hopes of regaining their status.

I don’t know what has gotten into Bill & Hillary Clinton but yesterday I had an e-mail from her saying ‘Let’s Do Lunch’ and today I have one from him saying ‘Mind if I drop in?’. In the opening line Bill’s message says “I hear you might be having lunch with Hillary — do you mind if I drop in? “.

I am a cynical person and so I see that and want to run away from those e-mails as fast as possible, but maybe they work. Anyone have thoughts? If you have an e-mail from a former president pretending like he is going to have lunch with you and every three or four paragraphs it says CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE, would that make your heart melt?

I think I would rather have something in my inbox that would make me want to contribute to them and had immediacy to it. Like “Social Security Won’t Be in Danger with President Hillary Clinton”. She gave a speech most people probably did not hear the other day where she said she would pay full benefits and not raise the age-limit for SS. It would be a good way of tying her message, a topical and voter driven issue and an action “if you want to elect someone who will secure full benefits for you and your family, contribute” all in one.

From Bill’s all I know is Clinton is smart and wonderful and if I make a contribution I might win a chance to have a lunch with them. I don’t even get dinner! Just lunch and probably with eighteen staffers in the room. I might be willing to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket to win $10,000,000 even though I know the odds. Tossing in $50 for no real odds of winning a fruit salad and sandwich lunch with the Clinton’s, probably not.

If I can raise $2,300 I can just go pay to have dinner with them and Warren Buffet and a bunch of other cool rich people and it isn’t a content.

Again I am sorry, I am cynical, this might be the greatest idea ever. For me though, not so much.

You can read the official Federal Election Commission (FEC) letter here or check out a Associated Press article summarizing the decision here, also quoted below:

DailyKos, an influential political Web site that serves as a virtual bulletin board for liberals, qualifies as a media entity exempt from federal campaign finance regulations, the Federal Election Commission said Tuesday.

The FEC said the Web site, operated by blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, cannot be regulated as a political committee and can freely post blog entries that support candidates.

Conservative blogger John C.A. Bambenek had argued in a complaint last month that the site should comply with campaign finance laws because such entries amounted to “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services.’

So what does this mean? Good things for people like me ultimately. It is yet another step in the direction of regulators, opinion makers and the government looking at bloggers as real ‘media’ and guaranteeing us similar protections. It also ensures we can continue to provide editorial content in a free and relatively unrestricted environment.

From the decision:

In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5928, the Commission determined that Kos Media, L.L.C., which operates the website DailyKos, did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Commission rejected allegations that the site should be regulated as a political committee because it charges a fee to place advertising on its website and it provides “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services” by posting blog entries that support candidates. The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yes I did say I was bored with Fred Thompson’s campaign in the last post BUT this is a site about the 2008 elections and this is newsworthy. So here is Fred Thompson’s new ad running tonight during the Republican debate on FOX he is not attending.

Read the rest of this entry »

So around midnight the Web video announcing his candidacy hits the Internets at about the same time he will be appearing on Jay Leno on the east coast. Honestly, I have about zero interest in the whole thing.

This extended unofficial campaign, campaign, has really exhausted me on all things Fred Thompson. In about an hour the Republicans will debate, an ad will run for his campaign (well placed!) and he will basically be the big giant elephant in the room that will actually, most likely, be talked about.

The problem is, in my estimation, the last six months he has been built up so much he may have nowhere to go but down. Simple physics really. Unless he pulls a rabbit reading the constitution while holding a ventriloquists dummy whistling dixie out of a snow-cone, I don’t know if there is much that can really live up to expectations. His best selling point right now is that he isn’t any of the other candidates running. The rest is still circumspect.

Yes, I understand this is the group-think right now in prognostication but I am telling you from my own perspective I AM BORED with Thompson and he hasn’t even begun running yet.