Are you ready for President Petraeus?
posted at 9:15 pm on September 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
People keep making the Eisenhower comparison, but Ike didn’t run against Truman. The precedent for a top general challenging his commander-in-chief is McClellan — and temperamentally, Petraeus strikes me as anything but a McClellan.
Still, it’s a thought. The public’s fed up with both parties and starving for competence in its leadership. You could do worse on that score than a guy of unknown party affiliation who managed to put out the fire in Iraq.
“Well, I’d like to see Gen. Petraeus warm up,” Dole said. “I don’t know anything about his politics, whether he has an interest. It’s kind of a time for another Eisenhower, in my view.”
This isn’t the first time the popular general’s name has been floated as a possible GOP savior — and it won’t be the last. Petraeus has political impulses but hasn’t revealed if they are conservative ones, and he might not even be a Republican.
The CFR’s Senor is skeptical, even though Petraeus would be an appealing candidate. “He has to be focused like a laser beam on Afghanistan,” Senor said. “If he is as successful in Afghanistan as he was in Iraq, nothing else matters, and he will instantly be considered a top-tier candidate for president.
“But in order to be successful, he has to work very closely and effectively inside this administration, and very loyally to the commander-in-chief. He’s going to work successfully with this administration, and then all of a sudden announce that he’s stepping down to run against the commander in chief under which he served? As a practical matter, that’s unlikely.”
An alternative to Petraeus identified in the same Politico piece: Um … Joe Scarborough. And if he won’t run, hey — there’s always Michele Bachmann! Exit question: Hasn’t Petraeus already answered this question rather definitively? Flashback to December 23, 2007. Skip ahead to 1:25.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
If you think Glenn Beck is too optimistic about the future, and we’re going to need a few years of quasi-dictatorship or real dictatorship to pull out of the mess we’re in – then a Petraeus type might make sense, but in our system or any semblance of our system, a presidential candidate still has to want it and take it, using a different set of political skills than a general typically needs to demonstrate. He might have the desire and the skills, or might be able to develop them well enough, but he’s given no sign of it. Until he does, imagining him taking over by conventional political means is difficult.
If Afghanistan falls apart after Obama has refused to give McChrystal/Petraeus what they need, and Iraq gets shaky, too, then you can begin to imagine a chain of events dramatically separating Petraeus from Obama and turning them against each other. I still hate to imagine just how screwed up things would have to be for the country both here and abroad for an Obama vs Petraeus scenario to be believable. Things would have to go pretty badly even for Petraeus as a VP candidate, even as a mere supporter of the opposition, to make a lot of sense.
CK MacLeod on September 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Finding it hard to believe that anyone takes Scarborough seriously, even Scarborough.
CK MacLeod on September 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM
You would all brand Petraeus a RINO. He is a self described New Hampshire Republican.
Squid Shark on September 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Apparently for you not be considered a RINO with Hot Air commenters you have to think Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are both awesome.
terryannonline on September 4, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Still moaning? Try to keep your derailment to one thread at a time…
Upstater85 on September 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM
This is such a ridiculous notion. Aside from not wanting to go into politics, the guy is terribly unsuited for the role. He is incredibly smart, but socially quite awkward and shy. He’s a little like Nixon in that regard, absent the ethical lapses, paranoia and ambition.
Guys I know who worked under him can only sing his praises, but he is not suited to be in a position that entails gladhanding and constant media exposure.
Muswell Hillbilly on September 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Which is kind of sad in itself. Why do politicians these days have to be good in front of a camera and kiss babies? We aren’t electing them to be Mr. Popularity. Just get the job.
terryannonline on September 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM
I think come 2012 we’re going to like the idea of an underexposed Prez who isn’t out gladhanding. Plus, any true conservative President would be an intelligent and hands off person- someone willing to let some of the reigns of government go.
eski502 on September 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM
If you think Scarborough has a shot at anything, you need serious psych help. He sold what? A handful of his stupid book? Conservatives can’t stand him. Are you on drugs?
Blake on September 4, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Patraeus/Palin 2012
Palin/Patraeus 2012
Either way Pa(y)/Pa(y)?
I’d definitely want to know more about him, but as the wife of a vet he could appeal to me. Although it does appear that he’s not interested.
thevastlane on September 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Well you wont be able to stand the good General either. He too intellectual for you I would imagine. Isnt that why we love Sarah and Beck?
Squid Shark on September 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Mark Steyn chose to live in NH because of their politics. If it’s good enough for Steyn, I don’t see what could be so wrong with a “NH Repub”.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on September 4, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Meh. I don’t need a political savior and neither does the GOP. The sooner they realize that the better.
blankminde on September 4, 2009 at 11:08 PM
I dont think that is what you are going to get.
I would vote for him. But if any of the TC’s vote for him, I would either be very suprised or just call them hypocrites.
Squid Shark on September 4, 2009 at 11:10 PM
You spelled that name wrong. Here in
PensaBangla-cola, it’s spelled ScrewYourBorough.tree hugging sister on September 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM
You won’t be able to stand him the good General because he’s straight. And we know you insist on a hard c*ck up your azzhole, Squishy.
Blake on September 4, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Petraeus is from New England and self identifies as a Rockefeller Republican (see the New Yorker profile of him from about a year back). Be careful what you wish for, kids.
Siobhan on September 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM
You just made the case for him to BE President.
David2.0 on September 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Reminds me of the following scene from the movie “Gladiator”:
Marcus Aurelius: Won’t you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
Maximus: With all my heart, no.
Marcus Aurelius: Maximus, that is why it must be you.
Mutnodjmet on September 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I’d like to know just WHO is behind even bringing this douchebag’s name up as a possible candidate for the GOP in 2012.
That would be so TELLING.
David2.0 on September 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Wow, that was mature.
Squid Shark on September 4, 2009 at 11:37 PM
They ARE both AWESOME!
And you ARE a RINO.
Thanks for John McCain, douche.
David2.0 on September 4, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Scarborough, Petraeus, etc. are all Republican machine candidates; cultural conservatives, 1950s guys. They are clueless when it comes to taking on academic socialism and won’t be able to capture the growing middle. Again:
Socialists (=”liberals”): 30%
Libertarians, real/classic liberals, independents: 40%
Conservatives: 30%
Republicans need to shift the debate from liberals vs conservatives to socialists vs “defenders of the Constitution, liberty and capitalism” – lack of a good word for it is part of the problem and the word is certainly NOT conservatism.
Thaddeus McCotter is on the right track. Palin is moving in the right direction. Giuliani could still do it.
modifiedcontent on September 4, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I to this day don’t understand why John Thune isn’t in the running. He is the guy that we in SD booted Daschle’s butt out for.
‘
Call me a hick, call me whatever you want….I am not being a person that wants to get rid of the McGovern stain. This guy is the real deal………
one problem though he is just a JR senator. OH wait/./
proudteadrinker on September 4, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I don’t wanna wait. Can we have him in 2010, please?
hicsuget on September 4, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I think we’re all forgetting McCain.
It would be a nightmare,, but I would not be surprised if he ran again. He might be thinking the world needs him now more than ever to save us all from some right wing extremist taking things over.
JellyToast on September 4, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Tru dat!
Laura in Maryland on September 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Toss the hat in the ring.
No one could be worse than President….(wait for it….. “Betray U.S.” Obama.
I would vote for an egg plant over Obama at this point.
Hog Wild on September 5, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Besides,, we all need a man like McCain to help us all get along and come together,, you know,, to reach across the aisle and all that.
He’ll bring bipartisanship back to America. Maybe he’ll even pledge to appoint Obama as Czar or something. Anything is possible.
JellyToast on September 5, 2009 at 12:01 AM
What a waste of time.
Sarah will be the GOP candidate, and there are no doubts.
So with that out of the way,
WHO IS THE CUDA’s RUNNING MATE?
Sapwolf on September 5, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Crimeny man. I would vote for myself for president before i voted for McCain again. On the same note I think I would be a better president than the WON we have. What’s a gal to do?
proudteadrinker on September 5, 2009 at 12:07 AM
The General will be a Dem-Lite anyway.
Sapwolf on September 5, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Not sold on Gen. Petraeus for President, but would love to see Gen. Honore as Press Secretary. Just imagine, if you will, the likes of Helen Thomas and David Gregory being told they’re “stuck on stupid” 50 times a day.
Left Coast Right Mind on September 5, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Yes.
Rollie on September 5, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Yeah, that’s what we need! A big fat RINO like Scarborough!
jonezee on September 5, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I’ll take Gen. Petraeus over bubble-head Palin any time.
But I’m not necessarily a big Gen. Petraeus fan for POTUS. I think he’s a hell of a military leader though and I like him.
Joe Scarborough? Please… may as well vote for a blue dog for POTUS.
SilverStar830 on September 5, 2009 at 1:00 AM
No. The men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq need him more. We can deal betty botox, scary harry, and obambi ourselves.
Fighton03 on September 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM
What? I am sure the approving subordinates have never given a second thought what he looks like on camera or his interaction with anyone but strictly on his ability to reach set goals.
Cindy Munford on September 5, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Hell yes!!!!!!! I don’t know the guy’s full range of political thought, but I have no doubt that he is willing to put his ass on the line for the good of the country, and I really doubt that he has any moonbat views.
The guy is definitely on my hero list along with the other who was Reagan.
Southernblogger on September 5, 2009 at 1:10 AM
What’s a gal to do? Why, fire half the executive branch and refuse to spend congressional allocations. Then tie the rest of the cr@p up in court for the remainder of your term, therby saving US taxpayers billions.
Fighton03 on September 5, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Though I prefer Presidents who have at least some military experience as they would become the Commander in Chief of our forces, I am hard-pressed to think of any military leader in history who was remembered for their political leadership. Perhaps the Duke of Wellington, though I know nothing of the details of his stint as PM.
Now, if the leader was an administrative type like Eisenhower, then maybe, though I get the impression that the jury is still out on him. The warrior types seem indicative of the Peter Principle in that being head of state is beyond their capabilities.
Look at how Julius Caesar and Napoleon ended up for example.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Ummmmmm…churchill?
Fighton03 on September 5, 2009 at 1:34 AM
If Petraeus wants to run, I’m sure he would be taken very seriously. But he’s expressed no interest to this point, may not be politically inclined, and I have no idea his domestic politics or even foreign policy.
Until Petraeus runs, he’s not a serious candidate. Makes you wonder why anyone is even floating his name.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 5, 2009 at 1:38 AM
I like McCarthy, but what the hell is Islamism? Damnit, name the enemy what it is and stop with all of the phony, politically correct substitutes.
Islam promotes terrorism. Islam promotes sharia. Islam demands the subjugation, conversion or death of all infidels on the face of the earth. Islam calls Muslims to fight the Jew and the Christian where ever they find them. Islam is the problem.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2009 at 1:40 AM
President of what?
A bunch of mamby-pamby Republicrats in Congress? We could have God Almighty sitting in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but the Congress of today would turn him into a weary man.
Limerick on September 5, 2009 at 1:45 AM
I don’t want a Collin Powell-style President….
I’ll be fine with a Ron Paul/Thomas Woods domestic policy with a GW Bush foreign policy President though.
Tim Burton on September 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM
I want to see how the general handles his new Commander in Chief. It’s easier to work with someone who appreciates your expertise but what do you do with a boss who thinks you are a necessary evil, emphasis on evil.
Cindy Munford on September 5, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Why, yes, I am ready for President Petraeus. When can he start?
NavyMustang on September 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
I like Petraeus, but he’s not presidential material. There is a lot we don’t know about him though so that’s merely an opinion based on one thing, his military leadership.
A gung-ho military style works when foreign policy only exists as a war time side dish, but we have some pretty serious domestic issues going on here, ones that may very well lead to a civil war.
If it comes to civil war, I really don’t want a military leader running the show. Not the time for that at all.
Spiritk9 on September 5, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Soldiers aren’t monolithic, group-thinkers. I think he, if truly conservative, would have a more nuanced (ah, I said it) approach to governance than that. Or, I would hope.
But, I agree there is a lot of information we do not have. While I am a sucker for a guy in uniform just like the rest (because, c’mon, we all know that’s a huge part of it) we cannot afford to make rash declarations about candidates without a full vetting.
Mommypundit on September 5, 2009 at 4:39 AM
What if Palin runs as an indie?
B Man on September 5, 2009 at 5:12 AM
The problem is that General Petraeus might lose the war in Afghanistan. If that happens he will be excoriated by the liberal press.
Jdripper on September 5, 2009 at 5:51 AM
Guys, it’s been said before but I think it needs to be said again: “War Hero” is not equivalent to “Rock Ribbed Conservative”. Especially among the brass. Having tenacity in Iraq could mean that he’s just not completely retarded.
There are some liberal hawks, dontcha know.
Lehosh on September 5, 2009 at 6:47 AM
But Truman didn’t run against Ike.
Excellent.
maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 7:51 AM
In fact, Ike grew up Democrat; but changed parties after WWII when both parties asked him to run on their ticket. Ike went GOP.
So a more likely Ike/Petraeus comparison would require BOTH the DNC and RNC to approach Patraeus to accept their party ticket to the Oval Office.
maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 7:56 AM
As stated, that comment marks your own deficit.
maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 7:59 AM
Your presentation comes from your own warp.
IF the war in Afghanistan is “lost”, Obama lost the war along with his liberal press.
Obama won’t give our military a clear and defined goal. Instead, Obama wants our military to be EVERYTHING, not a military, but everything else as well. In his own address to the military upon taking office, he spelled it all out. Our enlisted men and women in the armed forces are to be Negotiators, Diplomats, Mayors, Teachers, Counselors, Friends, Farmers, Builders, Plumbers. You name it; it’s in the list of charged duties Obama lays on our military, to build Afghanistan.
If Obama wants do-gooders to build his vision of Afghanistan, then he should enlist do-gooders willing to do that.
But our military is charged to defend the USA; and Obama’s charge to the military during his campaign was to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden.
Don’t blame Bush. Bush didn’t try nation building in Afghanistan. He cleared out al-Qaeda there and pursued them into Iraq where he established a clean system of government for the Iraqi people to value themselves with a fair chance to honorably participate as a Constitutional Democracy in domestic and international affairs.
The tribal culture of Afghanistan is not to be extinguished in the name of “civilization” as it is its own civilization. If America is still fighting the war against radical Islamic terrorism, then charge Gen. Petraeus to kill bin Laden and his troops however he sees fit, and let it be done. Obama, get out of the way, you meddling and pompous ignoramus. You can’t both blame Bush and play Bush. And its clear, you’ll never measure up to Bush as Commander in Chief, not anywhere on the scale.
maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Read an interesting take on Petraeus and Scarborough being brought to the forefront:
Beware the Media Bringing Gifts
Let’s go for the ones the media hates and then we know we don’t have a sellout!
PrincipledPilgrim on September 5, 2009 at 8:27 AM
LOL..good point,no need to debate,he sure beats what we’ve got now.
Jeff from WI on September 5, 2009 at 8:31 AM
+ 1000000
mkm19602000 on September 5, 2009 at 8:46 AM
The only jackass to nominate Scarborough is Scarborough himself. What a dumb joke.
Petreaus needs to provide more info on his plitical philosophy. If he is a Rockefeller republican, I’m not interested. However, if he is a Giuliani-like politician, he has my attention.
However, the conservative to beat in this upcoming election is Palin, and so far she has all my support.
cubachi on September 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Electing a President goes in cycles, depending on the mood of the electorate at the time….
Recent history shows Carter won because we wanted someone ‘clean, honest and less abrasive’….that didn’t work out so well, so we elected a flag drapped, horse riding true blue proud to be American Conservative in Reagan….that DID go well and Bush Sr. got elected on his coattails…in 1992, we went with someone younger, hipper and seemed more in touch with Clinton…after 8 years of moral decay, we went with the strong, rugged, family oriented Texan in GWB…after 8 years of GWB, the Country was ready for change again and went with the smooth talking , ‘historic’ person in Obama. After 4 or 8 years years of the inexperienced lightweight in Obama, America will swing back once again to someone with weight, ‘gravitas’, leadership abilities and a proven track record.
That is where Petreaus comes in. He fits the bill right now, but we need to learn more. Scarborough? come on, let’s get serious.
Right now, the only candidates I see that fit the mold of history are Petreaus and Palin
tatersalad on September 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Given terryannoline’s need to throw Palin’s name into every discussion this is a good place to mention that she/he is also a poster on some of the really rabid “foaming at the mouth” anti-Palin sites.
katiejane on September 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Thank you! It was as mature as you deserve.
Blake on September 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Apparently, Scarborough has a secret fan club. So far, identifiable members are ninjapirate and Squid “Squishy” Shark. Criticize him and one, or the other, will attempt to scratch your eyes out.
Blake on September 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM
How cute. Some people think there will be an election in 2012.
angryed on September 5, 2009 at 10:07 AM
There will be, but it will be rigged on all levels.
modifiedcontent on September 5, 2009 at 10:10 AM
General Honore (of Katrina fame) can be the VP candidate. I cannot think of another human being more stuck on stupid than Joe Biden. The VP debate would be awesome.
bitsy on September 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Care to explain why or are you just lashing out angrily because I dared to make fun of Beck and Palin.
Squid Shark on September 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I guess is it better than the “but but Biden and Obama arev stupid too here is why…” when anyone ever dared to imply that there is a fault in following these two.
Squid Shark on September 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Anyone that would support a candidate for President without knowing what their positions are is completely retarded.
LevStrauss on September 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Thought about him, but remember he got voted out even before World War II was completely over as the voters in Great Britain became more concerned about domestic issues when it was clear that the Axis was to be defeated. Also, we rarely hear much about his second term as PM.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Let’s see where Petraeus stands on the issues.
Being a good general doesn’t necessarily make someone a good president. We’ve had a general who was a good president (Washington), a bad president (Grant) and a mediocre president (Eisenhower).
bw222 on September 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM
What are you talking about? Once in a blue moon will I comment on any other site besides Hot Air but I have NEVER commented on anti-Palin hate site. Can you please show me the site you are referring.
terryannonline on September 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Then I apologize because someone is using the same name at one of them that I found last time I slummed at various anti-Palin sites. I honestly don’t remeber whether it was the Jesse Gryphen one or one of the others. I don’t save those sites to my bookmarks.
katiejane on September 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM
remeber = remember
I just noticed it because it was familiar. Again – my apologies because I realize that no one would want to be unfairly accused of posting at that type of site
katiejane on September 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Apology accepted.
terryannonline on September 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I can’t say it surprises me that you are now resorting to lies and projection.
Blake on September 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Why should we listen to anything Bob Dull has to say? The man lost as a Veep candidate AND as a Prez candidate. STFU RINO.
Lou Budvis on September 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Scarborough is a tool, should have left MSNBC long ago…I hope he is truly not considering it…
cmsinaz on September 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM
OK Then, explain why you felt the need to imply that I like to take it up the a$$.
Was it because I stated the fact that the General has stated that he is a New England centrist Republican?
Was it the fact that he is a very intelligent and well-educaterd man?
Was it the reasonable supossition that we tend to reject the intellectual members of the Republican party in favor of “crowd pleasers” like Beck and Palin?
Squid Shark on September 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Yes I am ready for President Patraeus but he has said he won’t run.
Dr Evil on September 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Yep. Here I am. On an island no less, I can see the ocean from my room. Guys? Never Again Volunteer Yourselves.
Rightwingguy on September 5, 2009 at 3:36 PM
You REALLY wanna make a Lib’s head explode?
PALIN/BACHMANN 2012
ocbrat on September 5, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Wow. That would be quite a combination. Which hunting, gun-crazy, stupid woman to go after first? (/sarc)
That would be pure awesome for me.
Rightwingguy on September 5, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I’m reading Wayne Allen Root’s book,”Conscience of a Libertarian” based on Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative”. He left the Republican party after the Republican Party left him. Along with Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” they are the two best political books I’ve read all year. Root’s ideas are really something to read as he shows how we can get back to the country the Founders created. I hope to see him on Beck as he claims to be a Libertarian as well. This is the change we need as Obama has made this country HOPELESS. Root gets my vote, he’s a real American…Do yourself a favor and get the book, his ideas have renewed my hope……
adamsmith on September 5, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Once again, I’m not surprised that you resort to lying and projection.
Blake on September 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM
We reject the so called “intellectual members of the Republican party” because we do not like their “I’m smarted than you” behavior.
Beck and Palin, show their intelligence by blowing large holes in the left’s platform.
Slowburn on September 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM
All I posted was that I do not support Petraeus because I know absolutely nothing about his politics and that the idea that Scarborough could be nominated for anything was a joke and the jerk goes ballistic on me.
Blake on September 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM
All military members are discouraged from showing any specific political affiliation. So while in uniform the General will claim not being interested in running.
MSGTAS on September 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2