Green Room

General Petraeus 4 Prez or VP: Are you sure you mean that?

posted at 1:06 pm on February 21, 2010 by

Among the most common additions to 2012 “dream team” presidential tickets, even at this venerable redoubt of the hard right, is the name “Petraeus.” He’d make Palin/Pawlenty/Romney/Huckabee/Thune-whomever instantly credible, seems to be the thinking.

Look, anything for the team and, up against Obama, for a win. Petraeus is said to be registered R, but of the nearly extinct Northeastern genus Rockefellerus (i.e., David Frum, only more so), but ticket-balancing has a long tradition behind it. Ronald Wilson Reagan himself gave us VP and President George Herbert Walker Voodoo Economics Read My Lips (Fooled Ya!) Bush, and had thought it was a bright idea in ’76 to bring liberal Senator Richard Schweiker onto his proposed presidential ticket.

But some observations, based on watching the General on Meet the Press this morning:

  • He thinks Iran is “a ways” away from a nuclear weapon, and favors our continuing the “pressure track” that we’re now on. Not the slightest hint of impatience with the current administration’s engagement policy – instead, words that in effect approve of it, as laying the pretext to unspecified future action.
  • He clearly opposes detainee interrogation methods that go beyond the Army Field Manual, believing they eventually end up “biting us on the backside,” and also aren’t necessary. And he explicitly favors closing Guantanamo, though isn’t “seized” with the notion that it must be closed by any certain date.
  • He likes to deflect difficult or potentially controversial questions – such as the ones above, also on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and on Mullah Baradar’s capture and interrogation – by referring to orderly, methodical processes, or by methodically explaining why it would be out of order for him to answer.
  • He doesn’t say “Pock-ee-stan,” but he does say “Pah-ki-stan” – not “Pack-i-stan” like all red-blooded American conservatives…

It’s not completely inconceivable that such a man – such an intelligent, orderly, methodical, possibly a great man – could win a presidential election, if he cared to run or was drafted, but the character of the race and the circumstances surrounding it would have to be different than any we’ve seen in a very long time. Think total breakdown of law and order or so.

Leaving aside the fact that his views, if any, on fiscal policy, the size of government, taxes, and other key issues including social issues remain unknown, purely considering his main area of expertise, if he weren’t a successful, competent, and famous general, I don’t think the Republican Party of our times, or certainly the conservative wing, would want him anywhere near a presidential ticket, at the top or the bottom. When you pair him with a solid conservative candidate, even speculatively, even just for fun, you’re mainly highlighting the perceived deficiencies of that candidate – a lack of confidence in his or her appeal or credibility.

I will say this for the General: If he placed himself foursquare behind a major political objective – say, restoring the fundamentals of the American economy beginning with a real reduction in the size of government and a rationalization and re-conception of taxation and regulatory schemes, an objective that has largely eluded national conservatives despite generations of argument and campaigning – I’d trust him more than almost any other major American public figure to approach it methodically and in an orderly manner, and maybe even achieve it when no one else could.

But I also believe him when he says he’s not interested in running for office.

cross-adapted from Zombie Contentions

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Many of the points you address are valid concerns and in the case of your typical potential candidate who is free to speak freely, might constitue outright rejection. However in Patraeus’ circumstance the rules of opining are limited by his active duty status, enforcable by the UCMJ no less.

Short of evidenciary proof of outright treason by civillian leadership his leeway is severly constrained in what he can as to any contrary perspectives he is allowed to annuciate for public discourse, that’s just the it is and should be.

He also has convincingly disdained an active role in civian leadership which I take to be genuine, something that I quite frankly hold as a point in his favor. That said, where he pesonally stands specifically on many of these issues cannot be accurately ascribed until a point where he would be allowed to frankly voice his dissent.

His service up to now denotes valor, integrity, intellectually honesty and consumate ability. Traits I think we can all agree have been sorely lacking from either party.

His true viability as a candidate will not be known until he can tke public positions and gives an indication of those whom he would choose to fill out his administration. Something that was disaterously overlooked when Obama was running.

I conclude by saying that watever warts Patraeus possess’ in trhe view of conservatives, given the feild as it stands now, wecould do far worse.

Archimedes on February 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Allahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM

The only success he has is gaining rank by sucking up to whoever is above him. I hardly think that is leadership.

respectamerica on February 24, 2010 at 3:39 PM