Political Animal
Blog
It must be interesting to be Matt Drudge, with the power and the amorality to create big media “stories” at the flick of a mouse, and with no limitations other than serving the ultimate aims of his corporate and partisan overlords.
You may recall that its was Drudge who launched the “Condi Boom” a while back when the Romney campaign needed a major distraction from its Bain-and-tax problems. It was, of course, total BS. But it looks downright Delphic compared to Matt’s latest number: the claim that a boom is a-borning for the Veep selection of David Petraeus. What makes this particular skinless-trial-balloon fascinating is that Drudge attributes the rumor to none other than Barack Obama! No, seriously:
President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!
“The president wasn’t joking,” the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.
A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.
Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.
The pick could be a shrewd Romney choice. A cross-party pull. The Obama administration hailed Petraeus as one of history’s greatest military strategists. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA by the US Senate 94-0.
But Petraeus has categorically asserted that he has NO political ambitions. And Team Obama stands prepared to tie one of their own to “Bush wars.” A Petraeus pick could been seen as simply shuffling the decks of power in DC.
“He’s a serious man, for seriously dangerous times,” notes a top Republican.
A DRUDGE POLL on Tuesday morning showed readers split on if Romney should give it a go.
I just love it that the man throws out this preposterous claim, debates it, and then polls readers on it, all in a brisk morning’s work.
I have no particular idea why Drudge’s masters in Boston are encouraging this speculation, other than to keep interest lively in a decision that will likely settle on such vanilla acceptable-to-wingnuts placeholders as TPaw, Portman or Thune. Do they think it’s some sort of clever feint to suggest that a campaign psychotically focused on the proposition that voters should only think about the economy (and in cases of undecided white voters, maybe about those people Obama wants to reward with welfare money) would add someone to the ticket with zero experience in domestic government or “job-creating” either? Beats me. Maybe Drudge has finally descended to self-parody.
Facebook
Twitter
Burr Deming on August 07, 2012 1:30 PM:
One minor note:
A year ago, conservatives were subdued in their praise of General Petraeus. Seems they were appalled because he opposes torture.
arkie on August 07, 2012 1:35 PM:
Will PolitiFact rate Drudge's story as a lie?
If Harry Reid saying that someone told him something is a lie, then surely, Drudge saying that an insider told him that the President said something to another person must also be a lie since Drudge offers no proof to support his claim.
c u n d gulag on August 07, 2012 1:37 PM:
Well, in all fairness to Mitt, Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest are long dead.
And if Ike wasn't also, he'd be WAAAAAAY to Liberal for today's Republican Party - the man was practically a Communist!
All kidding aside, why would Mitt bring in a man who helped President Obama get out of Iraq, a Goerge W. Bush created disaster of epic proportions, and who was also involved in helping the President to kill Osama bin Laden?
Does he want to remind voters of that every day?
This rumor makes about as much sense as any of the usual word turds that Drudge poops into the broadband networks.
MuddyLee on August 07, 2012 2:17 PM:
Do the repubs want a VP who is a career "government worker"? Of course he hasn't gotten filthy rich through financial wheeling/dealing, and he probably doesn't own 10 houses and multiple Cadillacs, so in a sense he could balance out the ticket.
TCinLA on August 07, 2012 2:25 PM:
Failed-Hollywood-actor-wannabee Matt Drudge is the perfect example of a certain type you find among the never-were-never-will-be's panhandling on Hollywood Boulevard: the absolutely-unswayable conviction that they are not the talentless morons they always were. In Drudge's case, what saved him from his deserved anonymity was the low cunning to latch onto the OJ Trial with "news" (mostly created out of whole cloth) and then a willingness that knows no limits to be "famous" regardless. He wasn't even political until someone came along and told him he could make money stirring up the wingnuts.
Mitch on August 07, 2012 2:48 PM:
"Do they think it’s some sort of clever feint to suggest that a campaign psychotically focused on the proposition that voters should only think about the economy ... would add someone to the ticket with zero experience in domestic government or “job-creating” either?"
No. The GOP realizes that a large part of our population has an unhealthy amount of love for the military that borders on mindless worship. Your average GOP voter is not really overly fond of billionaire plurocrats. They are also not fond of anyone who has ever been a politician. But, damn, Conservatives love the military.
They may not love it enough to give our boys proper equipment or thorough plans (*cough* Iraq *cough*), but just try saying that our military is too large, or that dropping bombs may not be the best solution to any problem to your average GOP voter. The best you can hope for is that they scream at you and call you names.
Picking Petraeus would bump up Romney's street cred with the kind of people who believe that "American Exceptionalism" basically boils down to our ability to kick butt and blow up stuff.
Now, I don't think it will happen. Petraeus doesn't seem interested in any sort of political career. So this is probably all smoke and bluster like all the other VP speculaton that's floating around the world.
But if Romney were to ask someone like Petraeus, please don't wonder why Romney didn't pick someone with economic qualifications.
First of all, there is no evidence that the GOP cares at all about the economy, or the welfare of your average American citizen. Secondly, remember that the GOP always insists that it - and it alone - is qualified on matters of national security. They took a hit on that from the Bush Admin, but not much of one.
And, let's face it, nobody on the Right gives Obama any credit for his actions as Commander in Chief. He may have ordered the strike on Bin Laden, but Obama is still just another pinko-commie-islamofascist-hippie dope smoker to our friends on the Right.
Now personally, I think that Drudge and company are, well, trying to give the Republicans an idea. Don't pick a politician as a running mate. Pick a soldier. Pick a warrior. Pick someone whose career of service will inspire the "real 'mercans" and offer the "undecided center" a platform of a mega-rich businessman and a living symbol of American military might.
Remember that many people "support the troops" with utter devotion, at least in words and passion. Repug voters in particular may hate the government, but they simply adore the part of the government that has guns, bombs, jets and ships. Indeed, doesn't the GOP basically feel that the government should more or less be JUST the military?
So it may not make any sense to you from an economic or policy standpoint. But as far as Public Relations go, snagging a decorated and popular officer like Petraeus would be a windfall.
Don't the ads just write themselves: "I'm Mitt Romney, and I know business. My vast wealth proves that. My running mate knows national security. Vote for us. Not the former Junior Senator and failed President with his career politician partner, Biden. A vote for us is a vote for freedom, security and prosperity."
Pardon me, I just threw up a little bit.
jjm on August 07, 2012 2:48 PM:
To @arkie: Precisely! Why is the smudge in drudge any less of a 'lie' than Reid's--both report something someone is said to have said to someone, though Drudge is one more degree removed from the allegation...
T2 on August 07, 2012 2:51 PM:
Petraeus would have been a good person for the established GOP to push for the presidential nomination except for one small point - he is not crazy. And I don't think he's a liar (could be wrong there). And then there's the fact he works for Obama - who is black, by the way. And used to work for George W. Bush - the Unmentionable One.
Those are disqualifying points in today's GOP, and they'll disqualify him for the VP slot.
jsjiowa on August 07, 2012 3:30 PM:
Republicans are desperate to change the press coverage from continued speculation about the tax returns. If Drudge wasn't posting imaginary VP selections, they would just create a different distraction. Tax returns? Lalala...can't hear you!!
exlibra on August 07, 2012 5:35 PM:
I have no particular idea why Drudge’s masters in Boston are encouraging this speculation, [...] -- Ed Kilgore
The "discrimination against veteran voters" flap in Ohio? The state legislators took away the three-day early voting opportunity for everyone except those on active duty. Obama wants everyone to have the three day early voting window and is defending it in court. So, naturally, R-Money came out against Obama. And the veterans came out against R-Money...
"lesTha drive". As usual, Rs want less of a voter empowerment.
Zorro on August 07, 2012 8:51 PM:
Maybe Drudge has finally descended to self-parody.
"Finally descended?" That would imply that, at some point, Drudge wasn't self-parody.
-Z
Kevin Ray on August 07, 2012 11:09 PM:
Wow. That explains so much. I've seen a lot of trolls sign off on comments with "Romney/Petraeus!". I was wondering WTF was happening. You gotta hand it to these guys, they have a hell of a grapevine.
Milt on August 08, 2012 10:05 AM:
This constant intentionally generated talk about about the vice presidential slot reminds me of late winter sports columns about the Cubs pitching staff. Everyone knows there is nothing there but what else is there to talk about.