Of Course! It's Petraeus in 2012!

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,131
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I think that there was a thread a while back asking about who would take over GOP leadership in the future. I can't seem to find that thread now, but I seem to recall discussion centered around Palin, Jindal and Gingrich. At the time it didn't occur to me, but once it does, he is the obvious frontrunner if he wants the job.

I predict that David PetraeusWP will be the next GOP nominee for president.

250px-David_H._Petraeus_2008_2.jpg
 
He won't. As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician
in several occasions, including the testimonies - indicating that he doesn't
feel that it would be the right job for him to be one.
 
Seems unlikely if the economy remains the way it is. Perhaps during a dangerous war, but I can't see how Iraq will remain relevant in 2012.
 
Only a politician would say he's not a politician! Look, I found his shoe!
 
Oliver said:
He won't. As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician
in several occasions, including the testimonies - indicating that he doesn't
feel that it would be the right job for him to be one.
Click to expand...

That could just be to fend off the press. He basically has to say flat-out that he won't run to get them to stop pestering him about it. OTOH, he might really mean it.

Undesired Walrus said:
Seems unlikely if the economy remains the way it is. Perhaps during a dangerous war, but I can't see how Iraq will remain relevant in 2012.
Click to expand...
Why would the economy "remain the way it is"? Four years is a long time. When was the last time we had a 4-year recession?
Recessions in the United States
 
I can see 2 scenerios where Petreus emerges as a candidate. One is that the US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan with victories and Petreus is given the credit. The other is that he clashes with Obama over strategy, is replaced/resigned, and the situation bogs down in one place or the other and Obama takes the blame. I think the second scenario is more likely, as here the war issue would be pushed to the forefront and he could be brought in as a potential savior.

If, on the other hand, the US "wins" in Afghanistan and Iraq, then bringing back the conquering general to lead the country would only be likely if national security issues were felt the defining issues of the election, which would require the rise of another national security threat such as Russia or Iran that eclipses things like jobs, energy, global warming, health care, etc. I can't predict the future, but I see this as less likely.
 
Just curious: Is Petraeus a Republican? Or are you just assuming he is? I'm not asking that to be snarky. I really don't know the answer.
 
I recall reading this article over a year ago:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09132007.html

The US commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad three years ago according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser and spokesman at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, says that Gen Petraeus discussed with him his long term ambition to be president when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-5.

“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said ‘no, that would be too soon,” said Mr Khadim who now lives in London.
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician in several occasions
Click to expand...
All politicians in the United States like to claim that they are not politicians. It's as if they are ashamed of their chosen profession.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Just curious: Is Petraeus a Republican? Or are you just assuming he is? I'm not asking that to be snarky. I really don't know the answer.
Click to expand...



It seems as if he's a Republican:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002317.php

Keep Eyes On Petraeus: Could Be the Republican's Wesley Clark of 2012
There is informal discussion among some in the military set -- and increasingly among some pols -- that General David Petraeus could be an interesting presidential prospect on the Republican side of the line a few years from now.
Click to expand...
 
Petraeus is a damned good general.

Historically speaking, good generals have made mediocre presidents.

I'd rather see him in a position that speaks to his strengths -- superintendant of West Point, National Security Advisor, NATO Permanent Representative, that kind of thing. I wonder what he wants to do?
 
R.Mackey said:
Petraeus is a damned good general.

Historically speaking, good generals have made mediocre presidents.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that George Washington was a mediocre president?
Anyway, I think you have to look at him as an individual, not judge him based on what other generals have done.
I'd rather see him in a position that speaks to his strengths -- superintendant of West Point, National Security Advisor, NATO Permanent Representative, that kind of thing. I wonder what he wants to do?
Click to expand...
That is the question I guess.

If I was a republican, the following are reasons why I would want Petraeus as a nominee:

1) Not a "Washington insider"
2) Competant, intellectual
3) While the republican brand is at low ebb, he is not personally associated with any of its failures (he even turned around a failing Iraq war).
4) Who else is there?
 
Puppycow said:
Are you suggesting that George Washington was a mediocre president?
Anyway, I think you have to look at him as an individual, not judge him based on what other generals have done.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The same could be said for Washington, though -- to call him simply "a general" is to ignore his other involvement and contribution during the formative years of the Colonies, the Revolution, and the Confederation. I am unaware of any comparable achievements that General Petraeus has to his credit, though I would commend him for his focus.

Puppycow said:
That is the question I guess.

If I was a republican, the following are reasons why I would want Petraeus as a nominee:

1) Not a "Washington insider"
2) Competant, intellectual
3) While the republican brand is at low ebb, he is not personally associated with any of its failures (he even turned around a failing Iraq war).
4) Who else is there?
Click to expand...

Why is there such stigma at being "an insider?" Apart from there being a longer paper trail on you, experience is generally a benefit.

"Who else is there" is damning with faint praise, but it is a good question. I don't have an answer for it. There might still be time to pass an Amendment and try to draft the Governator, I say only partly in jest...
 
R.Mackey said:
Why is there such stigma at being "an insider?" Apart from there being a longer paper trail on you, experience is generally a benefit.
Click to expand...

Most people seem to have a low opinion of career politicians.
Data
Compare "military officers" to "congressmen" for example.

Ted Stevens is one of the most experienced Washington insiders.
 
Most people also believe in UFO's. I understand Petraeus's disconnect from Washington may play in campaign commercials, but I don't see it as a legitimate quality, neutral at best.

And a major "campaign issue" in our recent election was over "lack of experience," in effect painting one contestant as unreliable because he wasn't an "insider." This can be spun either way.
 
R.Mackey said:
Most people also believe in UFO's. I understand Petraeus's disconnect from Washington may play in campaign commercials, but I don't see it as a legitimate quality, neutral at best.

And a major "campaign issue" in our recent election was over "lack of experience," in effect painting one contestant as unreliable because he wasn't an "insider." This can be spun either way.
Click to expand...

We could have a separate discussion about whether or not Petraeus would actually make a good president, but that wasn't really the point of the OP. I'm considering him as a candidate for president. You certainly could try argue that Petraeus doesn't have the right experience, but I doubt you would get much political traction. The "experience" issue certainly didn't work for McCain.

Of course, it could be that the next election is basically a referendum on Obama's first term, as is usually the case when one candidate is the sitting president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom