Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The General as a candidate 

Over at The Daily Beast, Peter Beinert makes the liberal case for General David Petraeus as a potential presidential candidate that Democrats should be concerned about.

At the same site, Mark McKinnon disagrees, and rates the chances of Joe Scarborough -- Joe Scarborough!? -- as somewhat more likely. McKinnon's post and some of his top ten list should make even a weakened President Obama sleep more soundly between now and November 2012. Haley Barbour? Rick Santorum? If Santorum can't keep his Senate seat in PA, he probably isn't a viable national candidate.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 03:26:00 PM:

Whatever one thinks of Beinart’s clumsy mischaracterizations of the center-right, he makes a good point that the GOP needs a new face in order to beat Obama in the 2012 tilt. The party needs someone who looks like he/she can transcend the current political stalemate of ideas and the vicious Washington infighting, while still being someone who possesses the political skills to build a workable political coalition to govern.
If Petraeus was able to get Sunni to work with Shia in Baghdad, he might be able to get Republican to work with Democrat in D.C. without using massive earmarks to grease the way. I thank you for bringing this idea to the table. And I have one question: has anyone ever had even one inkling that Petraeus might be interested? Any hint at all? I haven’t seen one.  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Tue Oct 13, 06:09:00 PM:

Whoever dares to run in 2012 on the GOP ticket is going to get the same treatment that Bush and Palin have received. The defamation strategy by the dems has largely worked. But I am wondering if such a strategy would work against retired general? A second question: What percentage of Americans even know who Petraeus is?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 07:12:00 PM:

I love David Patraeus, but I just don't see that happening (I mean, I don't think he would want to). And defamation strategy by dems on Bush and Palin? Sorry, but they did that to themselves. No way that would work on Patraeus.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 08:28:00 PM:

Republicans/conservatives are utterly spineless.

They refuse to fight. They refuse to recognize that the left is at war with them. It is an entirely one sided fight.

Republicans/conservatives have preemptively given up.

John McCain is the Republican party.

The Republicans/conservatives are desperate to be loved by the NY Times.

They were completely and utterly happy as the minority for forty years.

Obama will win handily in 2012 and go on to make himself president for life.

Unless Republicans/conservatives give up their craven need to be loved by the enemy the country will be condemned to become a third world cesspool.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 08:28:00 PM:

That's the ticket! A new face. A new face will do it. Not ideas, or a coherent, logical philosophy, but a new face.

Yes Petraeus, with the help of a lot of Marines, Army soldiers and Iraqis with M-4's and M-16's, Hummers, M-1's and M-2 Bradleys encouraged the Shia and Sunnis to work together. I sure a battalion of heavily armed infantry at the Democratic and Republican conventions would work wonders in encouraging the two parties to "work together". Sounds like a plan!

Yes indeed, Bush and Palin "did it to themselves." Bush was a secret ghost writer for the New Republic back in '03 or '04 when "Jonathan Chait" (must be a fictional character) wrote about "Why I Hate George Bush". And Sarah was secretly writing for the "Atlantic" blog ("The Daily Dish", is that what it's called?) where this fictional person "Andrew Sullivan" has written endlessly about Sarah's gynecological adventures, in Technicolor no less.

Yes, they "did it to themselves".

Flawlessly logical, right there.

Ain't the Internet great?


By Blogger JPMcT, at Tue Oct 13, 09:42:00 PM:

I doubt Petraeus would be interested...I doubt he has the fire in his belly for political nonsense.

If the GOP runs an articulate right of center candidate who can go tit for tat with Obama's empty rhetoric...and if the American electorate remains as angry as they are now...the GOP has a chance.

Unlike the true political animal, Bill Clinton, Obama seems to have neither the sense or the good advice to reinvent himself before 2012. Unless he does so, he will get an award for being the best fundraiser for the GOP in recorded history.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 09:45:00 PM:

Give the Dems enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Let's get past 2010 first, and hunker down to some real strategy to speak to America about what they two futures are under the GOP vs. Dem options. I think it's pretty clear right now where we're headed under Democrat rule. No need yet to foretell the death of conservatism in America.

I don't know who should run, but I'd rather see Palin stay away. As for McCain, we let the NYT pick our man, and we let Rudy undermine the campaign by messing up the early balloting for Romney. McCain stinks and should've never been the candidate. By the time we see the next election, we'll only need to run on whether America has any hope left, and if they've had enough Change to suit them this lifetime.

My money is on the GOP. Hell, even the Dems are fed up with this clown.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Oct 13, 11:21:00 PM:


Are you suggesting that Chait and Sullivan's criticisms were only a 'defamation strategy' and not real anger at the result of Bush's policies or the incohesive diatribes that came out of Palin's mouth? Chait was very explicit about why he hated Bush.


By Blogger TigerHawk, at Wed Oct 14, 08:30:00 AM:

Unfortunately (as far as I am concerned), General Petraeus has "given the General Sherman," which he no doubt understands is the time-honored method for actually refusing to run for the presidency.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 14, 09:09:00 AM:

So he is prepared to let the Obama/Pelosi Democrat party lead the war further into poverty and war? I pray that isn't so. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the country.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 14, 09:11:00 AM:

that would be "lead the world" and not war. Index finger typing really can result in some remarkable garbles. Sorry.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 14, 10:51:00 PM:

I think Sullivan is severly de-ranged and obsessive about Sarah Palin, and I too, could work up a real "hate Jonathan Chait" essay, but so what?
The point, Elliot, is that these people have free agency to think and to write as they like (and the New Republic and the Atlantic seem to support them; bully!), and they chose these words and these attacks, based on their particular world view and opinion, whether factually based or not. Bush and Palin did not "do it to themselves". But apparently you disapprove in the same manner as those two do of Palin and Bush, so it has to be "them".
And if you think Palin is dumber than Joe Biden, then you haven't been paying much attention in the last 20 years to all the dopey things he utters from time to time. But he got a pass because he was Obama's running mate,and he's from Scranton. Maybe he once worked for Dunder Mifflin; who knows? Dwight Schrute in the West Wing; McCain kidded about making him his running mate, ya know.

Have I raised your ire? Have I "done it to myself" because I dare to exist and make a comment on Tigerhawk's blog that you find disagreable ?
Anyone who exists and speaks in a free society is going to someday meet resistance by someone who disagrees with them. Welcome to modern times.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?