« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Could a Romney/Petraeus Ticket Be a Game Changer?

Re-posted from PJ Media

By Myra Adams

According to Politico, the phrase “incredibly boring white guy” is now part of the search criteria needed to qualify one for a place on Mitt Romney’s VP short list.

Of course, Romney’s desire for a running mate bearing this awkward description stems from the negative backlash suffered by Senator John McCain in 2008 after he selected Governor Sarah Palin as his “game-changing” VP candidate and then was pounded for the choice by the mainstream media.

Several very competent “incredibly boring white guys” (IBWGs) such as Ohio Senator Rob Portman, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and South Dakota Senator John Thune have all had their national profiles raised recently, guaranteeing them a spot on the VP short list, but precisely because they are a group of IBWGs, the needle on the media excitement meter has scarcely moved a millimeter.

In seems that IBWGs are only exciting when one is in desperate need of an experienced heart surgeon or tax attorney — or if your name is George Clooney.

However, there is someone who holds high national stature and also happens to be an IBWG and who, if he agreed to be Romney’s running mate, might actually qualify as a “game changer.”

That person is David Petraeus.

Mr. Petraeus no longer holds the title of general because he has been very quietly working as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the Obama administration since September of 2011.

Serving in that capacity does not necessarily label Mr. Petraeus a Democrat — for when Petraeus was asked by his commander in chief to serve his country without a uniform, he responded as a patriot.

Back in April, 2011 when President Obama announced that General Petraeus was going to retire from the Army and become his CIA director, Reuters posted this interesting headline:

President Barack Obama’s choice of General David Petraeus as CIA director will bolster his national security team with a Republican favorite who is sometimes seen as a future White House aspirant.”

The piece continued:

The pick put a quick end to occasional Washington speculation that the commanding general in Afghanistan might ride to the rescue of Republicans as a 2012 White House or vice presidential candidate against Obama.

Well, that “quick end” may in fact be more open-ended as Petraeus’ name seems to pop up more often lately, although it is still near the bottom on the list of potential Romney VPs.

Recently, a widely circulated piece appeared in Foreign Policy magazine, written by Paul Miller, a former White House and National Security advisor. Miller made the case for a Romney /Petraeus ticket with these arguments:

Petraeus has nearly universal name recognition and is one of the most well-respected figures in the country. A year ago only 11 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to Gallup, half that of (Gov. Chris) Christie. And as a non-partisan figure he has not been tarnished by the partisanship and mud-slinging of recent years. Additionally, Petraeus would bring foreign policy expertise to the ticket, balancing Romney’s focus on economic issues. If Obama really intends to claim that his foreign policy accomplishments should earn voters’ respect, there is no one in the country with more credibility than Petraeus to take Obama’s argument apart.

Petraeus’ name has not been in the news much lately because he has been busy quietly fighting the “War on Terror” that the Obama administration says is over. However, I agree with Miller and have long thought that Petraeus might be a good fit for Romney.

Here is an excerpt from a May 2011 piece I wrote with some early speculation about Romney’s VP choices, David Petraeus among them:

Romney’s selection of David Petraeus could possibly be a “game changer.”

Just imagine this scenario: General Petraeus is soon retiring from the Army to set up camp as director of the CIA, serving under President Obama.

So sometime in the middle of 2012, Director Petraeus has some “major policy disagreements” with the president and resigns his CIA post. Then he is suddenly available and Romney selects him as his surprise choice for VP.

Romney could definitely use the boost in the foreign policy area, especially when our nation might still be engaged in three unpopular wars. Petraeus would be a real asset to Romney and perhaps inject some positive energy into the ticket.

Now, a year later, we are engaged in only one very unpopular war, but there is still time for this scenario to unfold.

One could envision Petraeus resigning his post due to the recent revelation that White House operatives (ostensibly with the knowledge of the president) leaked for political gain classified information to the press about an al-Qaeda infiltrator who was working for Great Britain, not the CIA as was originally reported.

The entire operation about a new type of plane-threatening underwear bomb was exposed prematurely, threatening the life of the double-agent and damaging our nation’s relationships with the intelligence agencies of our allies.

Or there could be numerous other issues either known or unknown that might facilitate a decision by Director Petraeus to exit the Obama administration.

And if by chance Romney did choose Petraeus to be his running mate, one could only imagine that during the vice-presidential debate against Joe Biden a moderator might ask our sitting vice president the following question:

Recently captured documents revealed  that Osama bin Laden wished to target airplanes carrying then General Petraeus and President Obama because he believed these assassinations would elevate an “utterly unprepared” Vice- President Joe Biden to the presidency and plunge the U.S. into crisis.

Mr. Vice-President, fortunately bin Laden’s wishful plans never went operational, but please comment on his thinking that you were “utterly unprepared” to be president of the United States.

OK, I admit it is highly unlikely that this question would ever be asked in the real vice-presidential debate, but it might make a great skit on Saturday Night Live.

With Biden being such a gaffe prone vice president, one forgets how in 2008 Senator Obama was widely applauded for choosing Senator Biden as his running mate because he needed Biden’s “foreign policy expertise” to balance the ticket.

Now in 2012, as the world grows increasingly dangerous, don’t completely rule out Romney tapping Petraeus for those exact same reasons.

There is even precedent for a former CIA director to be tapped as the vice-presidential candidate on a GOP ticket. Former President George H. W. Bush was CIA director in 1976 before Governor Ronald Reagan named Bush as his running mate in 1980.

Yet Petraeus, even with his action-packed “John Wayne”-like career and national name recognition, might still be characterized as an “incredibly boring white guy” with no fear of his overshadowing Romney.

But there also exists the possibility that Petraeus, as a bipartisan political newcomer, could be perceived as a welcome addition to Romney’s ticket with the potential of moving the excitement meter and gathering enough momentum to help carry some crucial swing state voters across the finish line for a Team Romney victory.

 

COMMENTS

  • acat

    I respect the hell out of Petraeus .. but I think he’d be wasted as veep.

    Does he bring any battleground States? No.

    Does he patch a hole in Romney’s resume? Maybe…a Petraeus pick would clearly appeal to Jacksonians*.. but I don’t see where they’re particularly hostile to Romney …

    Do we even know where Petraeus stands on any issues outside of the armed services and related foreign policy? Is he pro-life? Is he pro-2nd-amendment? Is he pro-business or a nanny-statist? Dunno.

    If Romney wishes to win, the two bridges he needs to repair are to pro-life southerners and tea partiers .. and while there’s significant overlap between both of the above and Jacksonians*, Petraeus is enough of an enigma that I don’t think he’s the guy for veep. He’d be ideal for National Security or for DoD, though.

    For veep, I’ll stand by my previous prediction. Romney will pick someone with solid pro-life and fiscal cred, who is or has been a senator, representative, governor, or lt. governor, and who is from south of Louisville and east of Houston. This leads to my final point, Myra…

    Why a “boring white guy” ? Are you suggesting that Palin was a problem because she has a uterus, or because she was exciting? I disagree – strongly- that the problem was Palin.

    The McCain reveal of Palin wasn’t the problem. The buzz and ca$h generated by picking Palin wasn’t a problem.. it was the only glimmer of hope McCain ever had. The attempts at folding and muzzling Palin into a traditional veep role after choosing her because she was *not* a traditional pick was the kind of asinine move I’ve come to expect from John McCain.. and that leaves the problem at his feet, not hers.

    I will not be surprised if Romney picks a white male. I will be surprised if he picks someone “boring”.

    Mew

    * Simplified Meade

    • APA Guy

      As for VP, I can’t get the Newt Gingrich idea out of my head. He would solidify the South (I think FL is already halfway in the bag…and a new Quinnipiac poll out today showing Romney +6 shows that state trending in his direction in a big way) and DESTROY Biden during the only time when VPs matter on the national stage…the VP debate.

      Plus, having a former House Speaker with unparalleled abilities to articulate economic conservatism has to be a huge advantage given that this election will hinge on the voting public’s perception of the state of the economy.

      • acat

        is whether Romney’s strong enough to hold Newt’s leash.

        I believe Perry could have done it. I am not sure about Mitt.

        I also wouldn’t expect Gingrich to turn around and run in 2020 .. so we’d need a clear succession else we end up right back here again…(Cheney wasn’t Bush’s successor .. so who is?)

        Mew

        • APA Guy

          By 2020, he’ll have been Senate Majority Leader and the most solid conservative player in the entire congress. Imagine how he’ll sail through the primary nomination process!

          As for Newt, I just want someone who can espouse conservatism, destroy Biden and Obama on the trail and in front of a mic, and step in God forbid the unthinkable happens. Newt scores very highly on all three points.

          Oh, and he’s a Ph.D. who can make the MSM idiots look like a**es…worth the price of admission right there :)

          • acat

            The conventional wisdom says a Romney/Rubio ticket effectively instantly puts Florida and the Tea Party in Romney’s pocket.

            My concern with Rubio remains that there ain’t no such thing as a “Latino bloc” or “Hispanic bloc”. There’s a Cuban bloc, a Mexican bloc, a Colombian bloc, a Guatemalan bloc, but .. they don’t all bloc together…. and the Tea Parties are fickle.

            While I think Rubio’d be a good veep pick .. I don’t think he’s necessarily the best pick. Gingrich is .. interesting.

            Mew

    • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

      There are two books that are due to be published on Obama from well-written, respected authors. And Breitbart continues to vet with more shoes to drop.

      Hence, no one should be surprised if a desperate Obama who already played the race, class warfare, gay marriage card, returns once again to women and does, in fact swap out Biden for Clinton. That could possibly be the game changer, if she were to accept.

      The only problem is that Obama is still at the top of the ticket. Romney is already making inroads with Christian, pro-life groups, as well as the tea party. Those two demographics are already NOT going to vote for Obama, and I can’t see them staying home on election day nor can I see them not voting for Romney, even if it means holding their noses. It’s the indys, the mods, and the I voted for Obama and regret it types that need to be brought into the fold, as Reagan did in ’80.

      Romney said his #1 criteria is that the VP be ready to step into the job. Where Petraeus is concerned, personally, I can’t see it, but then I don’t know enough about him..

      Personally, I think Perry might be a decent choice, because while there’s no love lost between him and Romney, he’s more conservative, free market w/govt experience, and plays off Romney’s assets.

      At the same time, Chris Christie appeals to working class, urban-suburban Americans, and is turning his state around with data to prove it. Christie could go toe to toe with Clinton as VP. Free market philosophy, govt experience.

      A lot for Romney to think about.

      • acat

        you propose a veep candidate who would confirm that Romney dislikes evangelicals? (Christie)

        Your argument is exactly the kind of presumption that got us President Barak Obama in the first place, y’know….

        Mew

        • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

          Where has Romney said he doesn’t like evangelicals. Remember it was the Evangelicals who invited him to give the commencement speech at Liberty University. And I didn’t hear him being booed off the stage.

          Conservatives certainly will play a large role in electing the President, but they can’t elect him alone. So my argument about needing the moderates, independents, and other swing voters makes sense.

          Obama won the primaries because of his rhetorical skills and everyone was tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/another Clinton scenario. He then went on to win the election because of a heavy turnout in the Black community, and McCain’s lackluster, don’t bring up Wright or race faulty logic. He’s more than beatable this time around, but it’s not going to be by conservatives voting alone.

          • acat

            It’s not Romney who says he dislikes evangelicals, it’s *some evangelicals* making the claim. Consider this diary at Red State, for instance…or what Erick had to say here

            Just because Liberty parents and students are polite (and predominantly southern evangelical) doesn’t mean they trust Romney … and any failure to turn out the base would be disaster.

            That said, the position of veep remains, as John Nance Garner put it, “worth a pitcher of warm spit*”, so Romney can name just about anyone, and then put the designee in an “undisclosed location” for the duration.

            It’s the right position to use to shore up ideological bridges, which is why Christie – who makes a lot of sense for NRLB or Dept.Ed, i.e. send him to butcher one of the big federal/union bureaucratic cash cows – sends exactly the wrong message.

            Regarding 2008, it was McCain’s failure to capitalize on the positive evangelical/proto-tea-party reaction to Palin that led to Obama.

            Mew

            * he may have specified a different bodily fluid…

          • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

            because that’s one I’ll never win in this Forum.

            As far as trusting Romney, show me any politician who is completely trustworthy. I don’t have a problem with Romney, as some others may have, because I’m more middle-of-the-road.

            And for what its’worth I totally disagree with the VP comment. Dick Cheney was one powerful VP, the complete antithesis of what you’re describing. And I credit Romney with placing the right amount importance on choosing the right person for this position.

            Okay, I get it, you don’t like Christie.

            There was nothing in 2008 that McCain could have done to beat Obama. He was in a perfect storm,–his own mistakes, the muzzling of Palin, the country’s anger against Bush/Repubs, the overwhelming black vote, and the I’m voting for Obama to prove I’m not a racist.

          • juliea

            when conversing with acat about Evangelicals. After all, acat is an avowed atheist. Betcha didn’t know THAT little piece of catnip.

          • acat

            without being one.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            It isn’t with the Independents and moderates. It’s with Conservatives.

            Where acat’s argument holds truer than your own about VP selection has to do with keeping Conservatives proactively involved in this race to the point that they will apply that enthusiasm for the purpose of putting boots on the ground in Romney’s behalf.

            Most of us know that Romney is a moderate. He isn’t a Conservative, regardless of what a lot of his supporters try to say. As Conservatives, we’re going into this with our eyes wide open on that fact.

            But will it help ALL of us in this battle against the left to keep the group where the level of enthusiasm is the highest proactively engaged in this battle? Oh, yeah, it will.

          • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

            in this long ongoing post repartee is that it is not conservatives alone who are going to elect Romney. Certainly, there has to be enthusiasm among core supporters and a strong base turnout, agreed.

            However, if the implication is that Romney has to choose a VP “south of Louisville and East of Houston” to keep the conservative base electrified enough to put boots on the ground and turn out the vote, then I think you do a dis-service to the rest of us not as conservative, yet equally as dedicated workers, to get Obama defeated.

            I and many of my neighbors have pitched in at the grass roots level over several election cycles, and worked the phones, rang the doorbells, opened our checkbooks, hosted coffees and barbeques. We were part of that GOP firewall that gave Romney IL this past March primary, and we’ll be working again to maximize the vote totals for Romney in November. And if it was Santorum or Gingrich or Perry, we’d be doing the same thing, because the one unifier among us is defeating Barack Obama.

            Whether Romney chooses Santorum, Perry, Portman, Christie, Rubio, or whomever, it’s his choice. At the end of the day, Romney will still be at the top of the GOP ticket, as Obama will be atop the Dem’s. And then it’s the voters’ choice: stay home, vote, or vote and get out the vote.

          • acat

            Does putting Christie on the ticket flip New Jersey into the Romney camp? No.

            Does putting Christie on the ticket solidify support from any groups that Romney doesn’t currently have? No.

            Does putting Christie on the ticket generate the excitement that Romney lacks? Somewhat .. but that’s not unique to Christie.

            Further, Christie’s position on abortion is .. sufficiently nuanced that it would further depress turnout among pro-lifers.

            Like I said, Christie is a great governor for New Jersey, and he’s a good pick to butcher some of the Federal sacred cows… but as veep? He does not make sense *at this time*.

            This ignores, by the way, that Christie has pretty clearly ruled out leaving New Jersey…. but then, you ignored that part too.

            Mew

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        I hold a different opinion from others as to what a candidate should look for in a VEEP. I want Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction as Veep and here’s why.

        1) A VEEP gets to be PRES. under the worst of possible circumstances. The VEEP takes over during a feke-storm. It’s like being a back-up NFL QB who comes in after the starter gets his leg snapped.

        2) A VEEP gets used as a hatchett-man in campaigns. I want to see that hatchett weilded in a way that would make Hannibal Lechter proud. (And perhaps a trifle hungry).

        3) Any GOP VEEP will be classified as a racist/sexist/homophobic/E-VIL expletive deleted. I want someone who won’tt ake that personally and will still do the job under fire.

        To meet those 3 criteria, you pretty much need someone who measures pretty high on the DSM Butt-hole Axis.

        • APA Guy

          Southern bulldog with expert policy knowledge and the stones to shove it in the faces of the MSM…that’s Newt alright :)

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            -NT.

        • westcoastpatriette

          DSM Butt-hole Axis??? Hahahaha!

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            -NT

        • norris

          Good thought I would prefer Tommy Frank . Frank appears to less compromising and has a powerful no nonsense attitude .

      • trimulchio

        Gingrich—Health and Human Services. VP—Rubio or Jindal.

    • davenj1

      This VP pick makes no sense whatsoever and I fail to see how it can be a game changer…

  • rbdwiggins

    That’s the last thing the Republican Party needs. It’s the surest path to electoral defeat.

    Petraeus’ political career hinges on his ability to win at the ballot box, and to date, he’s an unproven commodity. Not yet ready for prime-time.

    That said, David Petraeus has my unabashed support for SecDef in a Romney Administration.

    Note: Bi-partisanship enables the steady, incremental advance of liberalism/progressivism and hastens the destruction of our republic.

  • http://www.myraadams.com Myra Adams

    In a dangerous world, domestic issues are taking up all the space. BUT, that does not make the world less dangerous. Having someone like Petraeus on the ticket would provide a balance. If world issues are not handled properly they will overtake domestic and economic issues.

    • acat

      See my post above.

      Obama and “brainless” Joe Biden can hardly criticize Romney on foreign policy .. I’m sure they’ll try, I’m also sure Romney will be ready.

      Petraeus does not patch any holes in Romney’s resume that *need patching* to win the general.

      Mew

      • acat

        (and if he’s smart, Romney will telegraph several of his cabinet picks)

        Petraeus’d be wasted at Veep.

        Mew

      • http://www.myraadams.com Myra Adams

        We are living in very dangerous times and it is a shame that foreign issues are taking such a back seat. They will not stay this way. You can bet on that.

        • acat

          The ads write themselves .. Obama bowing to various foreigners with a voice-over asking “Did this make us safer?” and similar questions.

          Further, these times seem no more dangerous to me than any others in our history. Surely, the War of 1812 was dangerous, as was WWI, and the Cold War. The danger has changed, it has not, nor will it go away… it’s apparently part of the nature of the world.

          Given the concerted effort to keep downplaying the Euro collapse and to keep the true fiscal situation in China off the average citizens’ radar entirely, I have no doubt foreign policy *matters* ..

          That’s all the more reason, though, to ask Petraeus to serve someplace where he can make a difference .. not as veep.

          Mew

        • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

          If you look at polling on the subject of foreign affairs, most Americans are isolationist. That never has a good result.

        • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

          Obama behind in the polls in September/October, and then a manufactured (or not) foreign policy crisis. Foreign affairs is one area where polls are showing that Americans think Obama’s pretty good — why I can’t imagine.

          Judicial Watch published a press release (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/13421/) about the unprecedented access given to DOD and CIA for the movie producers of Obama’s Bin Laden film opening in October. They even met with the planner for Seal Team 6. Unbelievable.

          Combine those two events mentioned above. An Israeli strike against Iran, a Eurozone crash sending the entire region into a recession like our’s in ’08, a N. Korean mis-fired rocket, etc. There are plenty of stupid Americans in this country who are easily scared. It may just be enough to tip the scales in a November squeaker.

          • acat

            Do you have a cite for this poll showing Obama is “more trusted” ?

            Mew

          • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

            http://www.wesh.com/r/31100042/detail.htmlhttp://www.wesh.com/r/31100042/detail.html

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html

          • acat

            The realclearpolitics poll is on Obama’s job approval .. not on overall electorate trust on the issues.

            The WESH poll indicates that more voters approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy than the economy .. not that more voters approve of Obama than Romney.

            You really need to look at this kind of polling by Rasmussen instead.

            Mew

          • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

            I stand by. I said, “Foreign affairs is one area where polls are showing that Americans think Obama

          • acat

            that Americans think Obama *is better than Romney* at foreign policy.

            Mew

    • rbdwiggins

      at the CIA. His expertise is necessary if we wish to rebuild and restore purpose and honor in our Clandestine Service.

      Absent that, I still support Petraeus for SecDef. He can hone his political skills to a razor sharp edge dealing with the United States Senate, and then validate his electability by actually winning a state-wide race.

      Rubio/Petraeus 2020 would then become a realistic topic for debate.

    • trimulchio

      and Petreus is a defense/int’l relations whiz. Still, I can’t see him leaving the Agency in a lurch . . . .

  • mikeymike143

    he is beloved by both the fiscal and social conservatives. and the ticket needs a southerner to give it balance

    • sulmak

      But maybe not for Romney, the outshine factor.

      And that isn’t a shot at Romney, most politicians don’t get where they are without some love of the limelight. And it isn’t necessarily a bad thing; I can’t help be think their might be a correlation between how McCain didn’t mind being outshined by Palin, and how he didn’t seem to mind being outshined by Obama all that much.

    • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

      He’s much better used in the Senate Leadership than carting around a warm bucket of spit.

    • trimulchio

      for the Senate races in 2010. He won’t be allowed to get it.

  • streiff

    is a Republican.

    I see his name floated over and over but I have seen and heard nothing to convince me he is any more Republican than Colin Powell. The fact that he is serving as a political appointee in the Obama Administration gives me even more doubts.

    • acat

      but I think he’s a golf-tee conservative. (only one leg – defense – of the stool)

      Petraeus may be a Republican .. but the question is whether he’s in the George H.W. Bush mold or the Ronald Reagan mold … and given the history of high-ranking veterans who enter politics, I’m betting on the former.

      It’s a rather small quibble, I know.

      Mew

      • streiff

        his endorsement of Obama indicates as much.

        I’d be willing to bet Petraeus is, like a stunning number of general officers, a Democrat.

        • acat

          “Ya gotta elect him to find out where he stands” ?

          Mew

        • trimulchio

          doubt he is a Democrat. It is a Republican bastion, although less so recently.

  • conservativerock5

    That is kind of important, you know.

  • aesthete

    This election isn’t going to hinge on foreign policy — besides some aesthetic choices, Romney and Obama’s foreign policy visions are remarkably similar, and there isn’t much hay to be made out of the few banalities that Romney has uttered about foreign policy thus far. In fact, Petraeus would be a liability. Here’s why:

    1) His nomination would represent a shift towards talking about foreign policy — an area where Obama is seen more favorably than in domestic policy. Focusing on foreign policy is not a great way to win a campaign in these times.

    2) The nomination of a military general so closely associated with the war in Iraq and the “Surge” would indicate to voters a desire on Romney’s part to start another war — all of the most likely wars on the horizon are opposed by the American public.

    3) Petraeus is a moderate who has expressed support for nationalized healthcare and various other programs in the past. His nomination would make it harder for Romney to get enthusiastic Tea Party support, and would be evidence for those castigating Romney as the status quo candidate (which he is, but I doubt that he wants voters to think that).

    4) Petraeus doesn’t balance out the ticket domestically, or provide any insights on domestic policy. He’s a one-note VP candidate who would be stuck talking about war all the time — not good news when Americans are done with war (for the time being).

    • trimulchio

      -a “military general” as opposed to . . . what?

      -the “Surge” was more about ending a war than starting one; and

      -”But war is interested in you.”

      • aesthete

        Leaving aside arguments about the validity of the Iraq war or philosophy about warmaking, nominating a general who is strongly associated with a very recent war (and escalation of same) sends a signal that a Romney administration will be foreign policy minded (rather than focusing on domestic policy), and that it will be bellicose. In a climate where Americans are tired of war, this isn’t the best political signal to send out.

        • trimulchio

          business man w/o foregn policy experiance OTHER than his trip to France as an LDS missionary (which is more than most have).

          Petraeus is associated with ending the war and having a smart guy on military/diplomatic issues could help if a crisis brews up between now and November 6, 2012.

          Still, he would have had a good shot at the nomination for President if he chose to run. Why would he take the No. 2 slot?

  • davenj1

    Its going to be John Thune.

  • trimulchio

    Fifth Star for Iraq. However, why would he do that when he could have been President if he had the desire? I’m not seeing this happen somehow.

    • streiff

      we only award fifth stars when we are allied with nations that have the rank of marshal.

  • trimulchio

    Seems like they were allies

  • Pingback: Blog