Peter Beinart: Petraeus is the only candidate who can unite the GOP
posted at 10:21 pm on October 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
As personalities, the syntax-mangling Ike and the self-consciously intellectual David Petraeus don’t have much in common. But politically, they’re in a parallel position. Today’s GOP has a right-wing base that can damage Obama, but none of its favorites have a prayer of winning the White House. The reason is that just like the Republican right of the early 1950s, which kept insisting that the New Deal constituted socialism (or fascism), today’s conservative activists have not accommodated themselves to some basic shifts in public mood. Over the past couple of decades, the American people have grown more pro-environment, more culturally tolerant, and more suspicious of the unregulated free market, and yet the Republican Party has responded with a series of litmus tests for its presidential candidates that represent the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “la la la, I can’t hear you.”…
Like McCain in 2008, Petraeus could largely skip the Iowa caucuses, which evangelicals dominate, and instead focus on New Hampshire, where independents can vote. In both 2000 and 2008, it was New Hampshire that boosted McCain, and New Hampshire, as it turns out, is the closest thing Petraeus has to a home state. From there it would be on to South Carolina, where military pedigrees go a long way.
All this is wildly speculative, of course. But there’s a political logic to it: Parties that have grown narrow and extreme tend to spiral downward until they nominate someone who is not beholden to their narrow, extreme base. That person has to be so popular that he or she can defy the normal rules about how candidates get nominated. Right now, David Petraeus is the only Republican who fits the bill. In the weeks ahead, McChrystal may become a conservative folk hero for opposing Obama on Afghanistan. But for Democrats looking toward 2012 and 2016, it’s Petraeus who represents the real threat.
We’ve been over this before. He gave a Sherman statement to Chris Wallace back in 2007. Even if he was inclined to renege, it’s hard to believe he’d do it to challenge his own commander-in-chief in 2012. If it’s going to happen, it’ll happen in 2016, and that’ll require another crushing GOP defeat against The One.
That said, Beinart’s larger point is well taken. Among the major Republican candidates, the only one who truly excites the base is Palin, yet she’s sufficiently poisonous to moderates at the moment that Bob McDonnell won’t even take her up on her offer to campaign for him in Virginia while sitting on a nine-point lead. Petraeus is the only person on the landscape, it seems, capable of intriguing the base and centrists. His problem is that, for the foreseeable future, the country’s problems don’t play to his strengths. Ike was an easy choice for post-war America because he epitomized strength and victory at a moment when the red menace was top priority; our own top priority for most of the next decade, I imagine, will be unemployment and debt unless Iran or North Korea does something astoundingly nutty. Why look to a general to deal with that? Like Beinart says, a serious look at Petraeus would require another Republican flameout in 2012, driving the party to such desperation that they’ll practically be forced to look outside the box. He’ll only be 64 in 2016. Why not?
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 3 4 Next »
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 1:09 AM
well said. I so disagree with the idea we need another McCain…not saying General Petraeus is McCain…just going by why we should nominate Petraeus as articulated in the article.
Will it be Palin? Don’t know…too early to tell. We don’t even know if she is running. But this part I do know, it better not be a lawyer. You are right that people will flock to a leader, a leader who is…
1. Conservative — A Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck conservative
2. Can laugh at himself / herself ( Is Humble )
3. Is a fighter…doesn’t compromise core principles
4. Is a 9-12er
5. Is not a goof ball, but is serious and somber
6. Is a person of honor…his word is his bond.
What I do know, Mitt, Huck, McCain, Rudy, even Fred do not fit this bill.
Conservative Voice on October 14, 2009 at 1:56 AM
No, it doesn’t.
The country is already formed so no more compromise is necessary or needed. I might also point out that the Founders’ compromise on slavery cost 600,000 lives, all because of how they behaved when writing the constitution.
We attract the moderates and convert them to our values. If you don’t like our values, it’s a free and big country.
All we have to do is carry around a picture of McCain. Pull it out anytime somebody says compromise. If they don’t get your meaning, walk away. Your soul will thank you.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM
On the “it better not be a lawyer”, people don’t trust lawyers, and are one of the reasons Congress is so lop-sided. Get real people in there. The exception to the rule on lawyers, a Judge would work….Like Bork :)
Conservative Voice on October 14, 2009 at 2:04 AM
For starter, centrists and independents who gave Obama the 2008 election are “very cold” to wars and people associated with wars. GOP+Petraeus can mean lots of attack to the GOP, don’t you think? Eg. WARMONGERS,INDEED?
Plus, what exactly is Petraeus doing at the WH? If he’s the nominee, expect liberals to give him a Full Palin treatment. A Traitor [and Racist] former defense secretary?
Next, 47% of the vote for McCain in 2008 despite being a liberal? And the recent events that destroyed the “bipartisan” myths of many GOPers? GOP has never been more solid than before, IMHO. Despite Snowe and others, GOP has been more conservative than ever.
And do you think that MSM will ever report a good news about GOP, especially about unity and solidarity (meaning against Obama)?
TheAlamos on October 14, 2009 at 2:10 AM
My dream ticket: Petraeus/Palin 2012.
Then Palin for Pres in 2020.
…and I wouldn’t mind a bit if Petraeus declared being a Democrat illegal and we threw them all in GITMO.
Mr Purple on October 14, 2009 at 2:11 AM
The MSM standard is very obvious:
1 Snowe vote = BIPARTISANSHIP
So, that Snowe’s vote as full bipartisanship and total disarray at GOP is A BULLSHIT GAME OF OBAMA AND THE MSM.
TheAlamos on October 14, 2009 at 2:16 AM
LOL Awwww, thx for the concern but I think I can handle it :)
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 2:22 AM
Oy…..
Moderates are lemmings, they follow a leader. They are NOT leaders. It’s why we DO NOT want them running for any office any time.
Again, you put a LEADER out there, and the moderates will fall in line.
And again, absent a true leader (Reagan/Palin) they’ll just fall for bright and shiny.
You want to win, you appeal to CONSERVATIVES. That leads to landslide elections every time it’s tried. Try making the squishes happy, and you’re done. Squishes don’t even know what they believe in on any given day.
Be who you are, and it better be conservative. That’s the WINNING formula. Always has been.
End of story.
Yes, our nation was founded by LEADERS. Men among men. They fought, argued and birthed a nation. Moderates would have “reached across the aisled” it to death! We’d still be a British colony if we had to rely on moderates!
Yes, Reagan was a “big tent” insomuch as he didn’t refuse anyone entry. But he damned sure didn’t “moderate” his message to get ‘em!
Reagan was a salesman. He sold people on the idea that his ideas were right. He also sold people on HIM!
I don’t give a damned WHAT moderates do, as long as they never run for office. They are absolutely worthless in elected office.
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Reading the comments from Loxodonta and platypus; its like watching a tennis match, back and forth, with both both players scoring excellent points.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Yes it will.
Be patient. Give her a chance for a comeback.
Petraeus would be a disaster because he is probably in contact with McCain and Graham and they are hoping to use him to go moderate.
He will be squishy on anything non-military.
He will be big-government, staight down the middle or a little left.
I would campaign for Obama if he is the TOP of the ticket.
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Wrong order.
The general will be awful for the economy and reducing the power of government.
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:33 AM
AP, why in such a panic all of a sudden?
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Again, I agree.
I don’t remember where I originally saw this, or who wrote it, but I think its excellent:
“It is the bedrock institutions of western civilization—family, church, and school— that make a representative democracy and a free market economy possible. With broken families, government schools run by left wing ideologues and churches reduced to yet another form of entertainment or group therapy (for those who even still attend) you will never be able to maintain limited government. Because people will look to government to do everything these institutions can no longer do or equip us to do for ourselves.
This is why conservatism doesn’t sell in the inner cities for example. These institutions have crumbled. You can’t separate the social and the economic. They are inextricably linked.
To be a conservative is to be about “conserving” something. What are we trying to conserve? Western civilization. The American Constitution. Ordered liberty. The civil society. To think that you can have a society vote for a libertarian economic agenda if they grow up in broken homes, attend schools where they’re not taught critical thinking or civics or real American history and breathe in a new ’spirituality’ that says morality is relative along with everything else …..well that’s just as utopian as any left wing radical. It won’t work for the same reason communism won’t work: HUMAN NATURE.
Without social conservatism you can’t ever hope to achieve the economic and fiscal goals of the Right in the long run.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Logic, Allah. The correct conjunction is “because he’s.” If he were down by 5, he’d be singing a different tune.
But you know that.
notropis on October 14, 2009 at 2:38 AM
I agree.
Sarah has not had a chance to reel in indies yet. Once her numbers improve after the book, more media time, etc. she’ll then be in a better position to assist others in those districts that voted for McCain/Palin but have a Dem as their Rep.
Her numbers will improve. It is still early.
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:38 AM
You MIGHT see a Palin/Petraeus ticket, but I promise you Sarah will never, ever, ever run as someone else’s number two again. It doesn’t work for her.
Sarah is an alpha and needs to be calling the shots. She’s the one with the leadership skills and the political savvy. Sarah has proven herself to be a natural.
Had Sarah been running the show instead of McCain and his band of fools we might have a very different group of folks in the WH right now.
No second chair for Sarah Palin!
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 2:38 AM
Any number of things can go seriously wrong for the Dems.
I think they will pass a healthcare bill. When they do, people will finally get a chance to read it and analyze it’s content. That may not be very pretty.
The dollar. It’s tanking and under attack. If the oil producing nations dump it, we will have to acquire whatever currency they will accept to get oil. That will not only not be pretty, it’ll be downright ugly.
The economy may slide further. That won’t help them.
The ‘unforseen event’. Unknowable before it happens. A war. A fumbled natural disaster. A political crisis. Obama and the dems are idiots and not well grounded in reality. The chances of them not performing well during such an unforseen event are very high.
Given this, the republicans may very well be able to nominate anyone and win in 2012. Hopefully, they will choose wisely.
trigon on October 14, 2009 at 2:39 AM
Simply awesome!
Well said!
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Doctor Zero awesomeness strikes again.
powerpro on October 14, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Wow. When I saw that picture with “Sarah” melted in yellow into the newfallen snow in front of the Palin residence, I thought Todd was expressing his love.
Turns out, Sarah was exerting her dominance.
Folks, lighten up — please….
notropis on October 14, 2009 at 2:43 AM
I’m sorry, platypus, but this is exactly what concerns me about some of the talk from some conservatives. I’ve argued with Jetboy about many issues and slammed him without mercy for what I thought were his terrible statements about Mis California and a few other topics. However, I’ve never disparaged him for his sexuality or called him abnormal. Personally, I believe that is both discourteous and ethically wrong.
But even if you don’t share my view about courtesy or how homosexuals should be treated, how does expressing contempt for all homosexuals, including those now fighting bravely to defend us under DADT, help promote a conservative majority? I don’t think it does. Instead, I believe that many homosexuals and the many more heterosexuals who love them, including many who are politically conservative on many issues, will have distrust toward a political movement that treats all homosexuals with contempt. So, for many reasons, I hope you would consider how you express your views about this.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Petraeus could be a great leader, and possibly a great President, that doesn’t mean he’s a good campaigner or candidate though. Let’s face it, he’s never ran for anything before, and politics is a tricky business. If Petraeus were the VP on a ticket I could see it.
I also think the #1 issue in 2012 will still be the economy. I know a lot of economists are saying the recession has bottomed out, but taxes are about to go up in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts expire. I foresee a double-dip recession – it’s going to be all about the economy in 2012. I can’t see a better candidate for the GOP than Mitt Romney. He’s got a better handle on the economic issues than anyone, and is the only candidate who can says he’s created jobs and ran successful businesses.
Romney-Petraeus 2012
Romney-Rice 2012
Romney-Rubio 2012
Any of the above will work for me.
joncoltonis on October 14, 2009 at 2:47 AM
No.
She’s running.
Get used to it. Watch as her numbers gradually go up over the next year and a half.
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:52 AM
People,
Do not underestimate the power of Sarah’s charm and the impact of her book.
I know two Obama voters who voted for him based on his two books.
Yes, moderates are squishy. But, because they are, they are easier to persuade into your camp.
There is a reason why they are referred to as swing-voters.
Sapwolf on October 14, 2009 at 2:54 AM
John Bolton would wipe the floor with Obama.
uptight on October 14, 2009 at 3:08 AM
It happens routinely in Congress. It happened when Republicans were in charge. It happens among conservatives. And if there aren’t ideological compromises, there are regional compromises.
What would have been the consequences if the Founders’ slavery compromise had not been made? What would the world have been like and be like today if instead of our nation, there were two countries, side by side, one slave and one free? How many more people would have lived their lives, shortened and diminished by slavery? Who would have settled and incorporated the West? Who would have been available to help win WWI and WWII?
Sometimes, the most awful compromises are necessary until they simply cannot be tolerated any more.
How do we attract moderate voters and convert them while we are demanding the heads of moderate candidates and office holders?
I don’t like the values of left-wing culture and government. And our country seems to be getting smaller, less free, and less tolerant of differences of opinion, Left or Right. I’d like to see that change before I die.
I have many very strong differences with John McCain, but I’d take a president McCain over Obama in a second. Barry is worse than I feared. I look at what I and the country could have gained from a president McCain, while some conservatives mock and deride him. Has Palin mocked McCain even once?
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 3:09 AM
The answer, everyone, is leadership. Unashamed, courageous, bold, honest, sincere, inspiring leadership.
People respond to real leaders and lacking a real leader, like this last election, they’ll go for the shiny counterfeit.
Being moderate doesn’t inspire. It just doesn’t. We had Mr. Moderate for a candidate, and what did it get us? Uninspiring, wishy washy, lackluster “leadership” that had the appeal of a wet mop.
However, a true blue conservative like Palin who can boldly and articulately communicate her agenda will draw people to her like a magnet. Just like we had Reagan Democrats, we’ll have Palin Democrats. Not because she’s “moderating” her message any more than Reagan did…but because she speaks common sense conservatism with boldness.
powerpro on October 14, 2009 at 3:40 AM
Anything is possible but ask yourself why would a Leftist like Beinart want to be so generous to the conservatives and Republicans to suggest Petraeus as an “ideal” candidate.
Do you really think Beinart wants to see Obama defeated?
technopeasant on October 14, 2009 at 3:56 AM
How ordinary.
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 3:56 AM
Perfectly stated.
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 3:57 AM
What Palin has going for her is that her base of support will never waver or fall away even if Petraeus gets in.
I can’t say that for the “establishment” candidate whoever that might be.
technopeasant on October 14, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Um, HELLO? OBAMA? ANYONE? Obama is popular with the lefty base precisely because he is just as extreme as they are!
Reagan? Popular despite being far right.
Beinart AND you are both wrong.
What we have now, for the first time in I dont know how long is a real battle between straight-up conservative and balls to the wall liberals.
And conservatives WILL win that battle because LIBERALISM DOESNT WORK! The economy is going to get worse. Unemployment is going to rise. Interest rates are going to rise. Inflation, energy prices and health care prices are going to skyrocket, while our enemies around the world will get stronger, and we get weaker.
THESE are the guaranteed results of the policies Democrats are passing.
And, much to your chagrin, America remains a center-right nation.
The choice will be clear in 2010, American will get to choose between the economic hell Democrats are currently creating, or Republicans.
It woudln’t hurt to remind people that when Republicans handed over control of congress to Democrats, the economy was still growing and continued to do so for 12 more months.
Republicans success in 2012 depends on whether they retake control of either chamber or not. If Democrats remain in control, they will get creamed in 2012. If Republicans take control of either chamber, the challenge will become not allowing him to blame Republicans for Democrat mistakes, and not allowing him to take credit for Republican successes.
but your problem, and beinarts is that you dont have faith in your own ideology! Nor do you have faith that liberalism will fail. It will! It always does.
American Elephant on October 14, 2009 at 5:05 AM
Please stop with the Big Tent BS already. No more John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and Olympia Snowes. Vote conservatives in the primaries. Organize your communities and get good candidates elected despite the big government liberal GOP machine wishes. We didn’t go to DC on 912 just to have a weekend out of town.
davecatbone on October 14, 2009 at 5:13 AM
You idiots are promoting Petraeus without knowing a damn thing about his politics. What a bunch of nutters.
Blake on October 14, 2009 at 5:22 AM
I know people do not want to admit it, but there is truth in this. For years I have been hearing people on the right tell me that with a real conservative, they could win…and yet they can not seem to find one to even win a primary in the Republican party, much less get support from Independents.
This does not mean that they should nominate some flaming liberal or something, but it might not hurt to nominate someone that most people trust, like and respect.
Terrye on October 14, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Surge Operation?
ted c on October 14, 2009 at 6:36 AM
Just which litmus test is it that John McCain passed?
The litmus tests that I’ve seen applied by Republicans are provided by the likes of McCain and Lindsey Graham, and those tests seem intended to filter actual conservatives from presidential politics.
applebutter on October 14, 2009 at 6:54 AM
A) Has he ever stated a position on, say taxes?
B) Two words: President Betray-Us
Kafir on October 14, 2009 at 6:57 AM
I did not like that little play on words when Move on said and I don’t much like it coming from someone else either.
BTW, I don’t know that Patraeus has shown any real interest in politics.
Terrye on October 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM
I remember when I used to think 64 was old. :(
ctmom on October 14, 2009 at 7:20 AM
The “electability one that the left wing of the party likes to drag out when they want to trash the conservative base. McCain supposedly had to get the nomination to woo moderates. Further down on HA is the thread where the weasel moron traitor Lindsey Graham is lecturing that we need to include the amnesty, pro-death, Obamacare “moderates” in the GOP to grow the party.
Make no mistake McCain and his ilk are poison to the traditional GOP values. He, the Maine sisters, Graham, and any of these other left of the party idiots who keep trashing social and Christian conservatives need to be driven out of the party starting now.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Public education
True_King on October 14, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Does anyone know for sure if the good general is even a Rebuplican?
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 7:45 AM
I’ll tell you why not — there won’t be contested a 2016 presidential election. The country will either be such as disaster that it won’t matter who is elected because they’ll be president of nothing; or all future elections will be fixed.
The
SocialistsMarxistsDemocrats have to be stopped or the great experiment in self-governance is over forever.johnsteele on October 14, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Hmmm. Seems to me the takeaway here is that Beinart, a fairly sensible Dem, is admitting that Obama is beatable.
What were the Beinarts of the world saying about possible GOP candidates in October 1977? Was Carter looking vulnerable then? A lot can happen in an incompetent President’s first and only term.
Sorry if this has already been brought up, the new format makes it harder to view older comments…
Missy on October 14, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Did no one pick up on a possible health problem for General Petraeus?
‘Gen. Petraeus Treated for Prostate Cancer‘
Early diagnosis, so maybe not a factor.
Serr8d on October 14, 2009 at 8:11 AM
And so it begins, again. Democrats and the MSM are going to attempt to choose our Republican candidate for 2012. Just as they did in ’08. Darvin Dowdy
Darvin Dowdy on October 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Sheesh! Some of the comments are as bad as off-season football fans making predictions about whose team deserves to be in the Superbowl. There’s a lot of work to do in the candidate selection process, and no one knows who’s going to end up doing it best — trying to guess now seems pretty useless to me.
BTW, at the risk of being considered a “squishy moderate” or a “left of the party idiot” I am not a Christian, and I actually resent the idea that I can’t be an intelligent person or support the principles of the Founding Fathers without attending a Christian church.
Conservatism will continue to have a problem swinging moderate voters as long as its most vocal supporters continue to alienate otherwise sympathetic voters with the “you have to be a abortion-banning Christian” crap.
zenscreamer on October 14, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Let’s see who’s better at mind reading. I say he’s already thinking of running in 2012 (which is when we need a change), especially if he sees BO’s war decisions going badly. Besides if you were a scholar and a general who’s already had success and your commander in chief was an inexperienced idealogue from corrupt politics, what would you really be thinking?
Nalea on October 14, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Wrong, won`t happen.
albill on October 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Except for doing a good job with the “surge”, does anybody really know what Petraeus is thinking ? .. about anything ?
I really don’t want a repeat of John McCain
J_Crater on October 14, 2009 at 8:43 AM
So, now all we know about Patraeus is that 1) he’s a general and 2) this bigoted nutterball thinks the GOP should – echoes of “Nooo! Don’t throw me in that briar patch, Br’er Fox!” – nominate him and, like, totally win…
I think Democrats should put up Harry Reid in 2012. He’s the only man to beat the GOP! Pinkie swear…
Lehosh on October 14, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I’m thinking another Colin Powell circa 1999 (who was much more well-known politically than is Gen. Petraeus), who will hover on the outskirts, a tease, then fail to commit.
And the cancer thing worries me.
REMEMBER FRANK ZAPPA~!
Serr8d on October 14, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Oh. That should be…
REMEMBER FRANK ZAPPA~!
Serr8d on October 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I think we need to put the conservatives back in charge of the party and tell the moderate RINOs to shove it, as they have done to us for quite a while.
President Palin. I will not vote for another RINO. I will STAY HOME. I held my nose and voted for Bush and Captain amnesty. NEVER AGAIN.
dogsoldier on October 14, 2009 at 9:19 AM
We don’t need Republicans in name only to represent the party. When Powell’s voice was needed in 2008 campaign he turned against the Republicans! Like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, Colin Powell never embraced the core planks of the Republican Party. I don’t trust such people.
The GOP met our standard bearer last year and her name is Sarah Palin. It is about time we embrace her, make her our leader, and stand in line behind her. If we are indecisive as a party approaching 2012 Obama will win.
IntheNet on October 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM
I don’t know that Petraeus is the only candidate who can unite the GOP. But why are you certain he isn’t, can’t and won’t?
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 9:28 AM
That is the attitude that rewarded us with Obama. If you’re waiting for the perfect candidate you might as burn your voter registration card
Far better to vote for the lesser of 2 evils than not to vote at all and then be governed by the greater of those evils.
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM
I’m not buying it. I’m tired of voting “the lesser of 2 evils”; I want a strong candidate I truly like and support whole-heartedly because of his or her stances on the issues. No one who is realistic expects any candidate is going to be perfect. The point is if we keep voting the other way then one day there won’t be a lesser evil, the two parties will be virtually indistinguishable from each other.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 9:38 AM
It’s better to have a good man on a white horse, that a liar riding a red donkey.
BottomLine5 on October 14, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Test
Hilts on October 14, 2009 at 9:48 AM
This comes straight out of the book “Condi vs. Hillary: the Next Great Presidential Race”. We tried a draft campaign . IT DOESN’T WORK. You have to use the regular nomination process for primaries, meaning THE CANDIDATE MUST DECLARE before putting them on the ballot.
Petraeus said “No” , just like Condi. If people keep pushing this guy on me, I’ll give them what naysayers gave me for 3 years: “But she said ‘No’! But she’s not running!!”
Lothar on October 14, 2009 at 9:52 AM
It didn’t work. I still can’t read your post.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Lox, you are the voice of reason as always. Thank you for reminding us Christian folk that we need a little more AGAPE and a whole lot less ANGRY in our interactions with each other. You’re a gem.
Laura in Maryland on October 14, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Patraeus is only a feasible candidate if the economy recedes as an issue due to a terrorist attack, the economy improves, and there is an international incident (pakistan’s collapse) that forces global military matters to the fore of the debate. What does Patraeus have to say about healthcare, stimulus, trade, or any domestic policy? Nobody knows, but more importantly he is not seen as a policy wonk in any of those areas. The problem with the right at the moment is that we continue to cast about for a savior. We need to stop worrying about finding our silver bullet candidate, becasue that simply isn’t how politics works. Obama ran more against Bush than McCain, and won. Dissatisfaction with republicans built the current democratic majority, not excellent ideas, strategies, and candidates. Now that dems are at the helm they will be forced to make all sorts of decisions that will enrage and demoralize their base. Once their base considers them traitors to the casue in the way the right felt about Bush’s bailouts we will have our turn again.
snoopicus on October 14, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I agree!
ladyingray on October 14, 2009 at 10:03 AM
We all want the best possible candidate,that’s a given. But, when November rolls around and you’ve got a known bad candidate on one ticket and a candidate on your side you are not happy with,by not voting at all, you are essentially letting another’s vote for the bad guy count.
In a case like that, consider it a vote against the bad guy,not a vote for someone you’re not happy with.
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM
We’ll just have to agree to disagree oldernwiser (btw I’m 47, not 21 in case you wondered lol) I’m a conservative first, a Republican second and I don’t think I can stomach any more voting for candidates I don’t truly support. Maybe that’s the way to get them to finally sit up and take notice, I don’t know but I’m inclined to agree with the other poster who said ‘never again’.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM
’92 and ’08 are examples of what you get when people sit out the elections.
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I’m so glad I had the opportunity to vote for at least one great candidate: Reagan. I voted for him in my first election when I turned 18. He was a wonderful man and a great leader; God rest his soul.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:25 AM
If we are (and I hope not) attacked militarily and Obama was weak in response, then the Gen. would have a shot…otherwise it won’t happpen.
right2bright on October 14, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I’ve never yet sat out an election oldernwiser. And imo ’92 and ’08 are the results of years of giving in and voting the lesser of two evils to begin with.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM
I’d like to discuss that further as I think people sitting out the vote (or voting 3rd party)gave us both Clinton and Obamba but, that would be hijacking a thread.
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I’ll keep on asking this ’till I get an answer.
Do we know which political party Patraeus is a member of?
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I agree.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I meant to add that I voted for him for his 2nd term as well.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Interesting.
Midas on October 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Like many military officers his bio on Wikipedia is largely silent on political affiliation yet strong on Service accomplishments. Assuming he quiets concerns regarding his own health (prostrate cancer), he needs to address what he said previously “categorically asserted that he has no political ambitions” and disassociating himself with his support of Obama if he plans to run.
IntheNet on October 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Bad link for prior link reference; try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus
IntheNet on October 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Exactly. I sure I’m stating the obvious but, just in case.
Just because a man was a military leader that does not make him anything politically.
Least we forget,Kerry was a military “leader”
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM
IN RANK ONLY!
Unless your talking about Leading a Retreat.
PappaMac on October 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I can garuantee you Petraeus is going to be far more intelligent and far better read than 95 percent of all American politicians.
Holger on October 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
LOL
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Patreaus, L. Cheney, Palin, Bolton…we’ve got some good people.
LtE126 on October 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Allah, you’re not wrong in listing Palin’s shortcomings. They certainly exist, although her status outside the faithful will likely change over the next few years. Political memory is fleeting. But as to your comment, “I wish he was wrong”, all I’ll say is that the left said that McCain was the candidate that they feared the most from the GOP and that he would unite the faithful and the centrists. Now I’m enjoying the McCain presidency as much as anyone, but I really don’t think that letting your political opponents pick your candidate is smart. In fact, it’s the opposite of smart. And it isn’t smart to buy into their arguments. Doing so only cedes the battleground to the and lets your opponents define the terms of the argument. The right has been doing that for far too long. It’s time to stop.
Physics Geek on October 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Petraeus is the only candidate that can unite the GOP? If that is so … why this?
If Petraeus is the only candidate that can unite the GOP – then why does the author set about a recipe that bypasses evangelicals? Does the author not know what the word “unite” means?
Further – why does he seem to endorse the McCain path to the nomination? Many of us weren’t happy that independents and even DEMOCRATS were able to get him nominated.
Sure – whatever – follow the McCain path. Oh where exactly did that lead? Loserville? Yep.
HondaV65 on October 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM
His point IS NOT well taken.
Let’s see … Palin is the only that can do it but … she’s poisonous – so lets jump to a fantasy candidate that we don’t know anything about?
PETRAEUS IS A FANTASY CANDIDATE.
Anyone who hitches to his wagon right now is not a logical person.
1. Is he even a Republican? If he is … what KIND of Republican is he? If he’s a Colin Powell type – forget it – then he won’t unite anyone in this party.
2. Does he even have a desire to run?
3. Can he make a good speech?
4. What’s his position on health care? Beyond sending more troops to Afghanistan – what is his position on ANYTHING???
Now I know who the Palin-haters are in this party … they’re the idiots. They are the guys who will throw stones at Sarah Palin saying she can’t win – then turn around put all their eggs into the basket of guy they know nothing about.
This is hilarious. It’s like announcing to your classmates that the head cheerleader is the only one you will take to the senior prom – and then you ask her and she says “no” … in fact, she not only says “no” – but she also says you’re a disgusting geek and she’d never be seen in public with you.
Why are we giving Petraeus this kind of power when we don’t know anything about him?
Oh yeah right – because we’re so afraid of Democracy in this party we’re fearful the grassroots might elect Sarah Palin.
THE GOP NOMINEE IS PICKED BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE OF THE PARTY. NO TRICKS OR METHODS TO ESCAPE THIS DEMOCRACY ARE ACCEPTABLE.
If Palin wins – she wins. If she doesn’t – that’s cool too but – the race must be FAIR. Try to “trick” the primaries in 2012 and you will see MILLIONS of us walk in the general election pardners.
HondaV65 on October 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I’d rather have a leader with strong national defense experience in gen. Petraeus over a guitar playing, talk show Huckabee. So far, if that is the guy that is ahead in the straw votes, then we are doomed.
stackedeck on October 14, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Why is everyone asking if he is a Republican? John Frickin’ McCain is a Republican. Olympia Snowe is a Republican. I’d rather have a true conservative run if anything, which Gen. Petraeus is.
stackedeck on October 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Well um, maybe because the title to this thread is
How do you know that Petraeus conservative?
oldernwiser on October 14, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Nominate a “model” conservative. That is someone who, in their personal life, embodies conservative ideals. I’m not a social con, but I will vote for one . . . provided they govern as a fiscal conservative-libertarian. I.e., many independents and libertarians will vote for a consverative who will promote a strong national defense, but otherwise leave them the he!! alone.
That’s why Palin has a chance; Petraeus can be SecDef or VP.
Firefly_76 on October 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Relieved to see it was prostate cancer Petraeus was treated for, I read someplace it was pancreatic cancer, much more serious. It would be nice to know, in advance of these transports, if he is Republican, interested, etc.
I worry when I see so many litmus tests. Agree some criteria are important, but we don’t want to restrict it into impossibility. Agree no RINOs, but we aren’t likely to get a perfect candidate, either. ‘Electable’ has to be in there somewhere…
jodetoad on October 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Its only 2009, I mean in that time we can have a bunch of nobodies come and give a nice speech that someone else wrote for them, and then BINGO into the White House.
I like the idea of Petraeus being a GOP hopeful, but I’m not sure how he would do just cause we don’t really know much about him, then again look what that did for our current Bafoon and Chief.
If he can sell himself as a progrowth, anti-tax Republican I think everything can fall into place, since, as the leader of one of the biggest collections of armed forces Men and Woman, we know he’s going to do what he has to to protect us and never say he’s sorry for our way of life.
Rbastid on October 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Another GOP betrayal.
Should be fun.
True_King on October 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM
What does that prove?
Virginia’s a Purple state now. Why would you take the slightest chance when you’ve got a 9 point lead. McDonnell already fought back against the WaPo right wing Christian smear. Palin would just open that wound. If he focuses on his opponent’s many faults he can walk to the finish line with a strong lead.
rcl on October 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM
It’s not about driving these types of people out of the party.
It’s about driving them out of positions of power.
Anyone’s welcome in the party as far as I’m concerned but the leadership has to be solid and committed to smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, transparency in leadership, individual liberty, strong national defense and respect for the Constitution.
powerpro on October 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »