Reader Mark noted below that I made a glaring omission from the list of potential Romney VP’s: General David Petraeus. To make amends, here’s a Breitbart.com post on Petraeus pros and cons:
In addition, if war erupts in the Middle East involving Iran, Romney, lacking military experience, may be at a disadvantage. And having the steady Petraeus as his running mate would erase all doubts about whether the country can risk changing Commander-in-Chiefs in the middle of a potential foreign policy crisis.
Further, because Petraeus serves in the Obama administration, being Romney’s running mate would appeal to moderate voters who tell pollsters they crave “bipartisanship.” Petraeus — should he so choose — could also make the case, based on his observations as a former insider in Obama’s administration, about why the country needs a new Commander-in-Chief.
Petraeus also does not have any political experience on the national stage and would have to subject himself to intense grilling. He would catch up on domestic issues in which he may not be fully immersed. Romney might not have the skilled advisers that could successfully guide Petraeus through the media freak show that will ensue.
Petraeus will also tie Romney to everything the country did not like about the Bush era’s foreign policy. He is also a symbol for many things Republicans do not like about Obama’s foreign defense policy — such as his support of Obama’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, closing down Guantanamo, and softer stances on enhanced interrogation to get crucial intelligence information from the country’s sworn enemies.
In speculating on Patraeus’ political leanings, the article also mentions the name of another New Hampshire native who haunts the dreams of conservatives everywhere: Souter (said through gritted teeth while shaking fist).