Petreaus 2012?

[ren0312]

How do you people think Gen. David Petreaus will do as a presidential candidate, he has the respect of most people from both sides of the aisle, which is a plus.

[BugHunt]

Which party would he run for?

[JKD]

Don't really know anything about the man other than he seems to know how to run a counter-insurgency. Where does he sand on education, trade, abortion, civil liberties, the environment, energy, spending, etc.?

[Jurinko]

His name is Petraeus.

[The Dane]

Swarzenegger ffs..!

[Blue_0]

Hmm, depends on how the war goes. I have always felt Eisenhower was an excellent president.

*I especially like how he ran a secret forward thinking spy sat program which he took to his grave without ever taking credit for it.

[Blue_0]

Don't really know anything about the man other than he seems to know how to run a counter-insurgency. Where does he sand on education, trade, abortion, civil liberties, the environment, energy, spending, etc.?

Does it matter? Both canidates we have now agree with each other on the vast majority issues. Odds are he would also.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Well if McCain gets in and lets the war end in victory, Petreasus' chances would be good. If Obama gets in, well then he'd have to do well in the rest of his command.

[INAT]

Which party would he run for?



The war party.:)

[El Diablo Rojo]

I've heard he is a Republican... hey, they've already got campaign stickers for him. Unfortunately I can't find a pic...

[Anthony91]

I was just thinking about this recently, and quite frankly...I wouldn't mind.

Though my support of the good General in the 2012 elections would change, depending on if the next Commander-in-Chief did his job well.

[I can't think of a name]

He has a PHD from Princeton and is very well respected.

He has said on record that since he became a General that he has abstained from voting. He feels that at that high of a level it is important for our military leaders to remain apolitical.

With the Eisenhower example, I believe he publicly was not political and people were not sure what party he belonged too. George C. Marshall was a HUGE proponent for General Officers maintaining political neutrality.

MacArthur and Patton left little to the imagination.

[Firefly26]

I've served under him when he was Devil 6 at Bragg, 13 years ago. He tends to have the midas touch with everything he is given control of. He's an excellent problem solver and I think he would be an excellent president. As it stands right now, he is going down as one of the world's best military leaders in line with Patton.

[philbob]

He has mentioned intrest

[The Dane]

I think that Obama will be in power untill 2016. Then one of the Bush twins will take over, Jenna or Barbara....

[MichaelF]

I've served under him twice. One of the smartest men walking the Earth.

I'd vote for him in a second.

[T for Tetrapod]

Jesus christ, who the hell plans this far ahead? If a man doesn't even have a plan regarding what he's going to be doing tomorrow, why would he have a plan regarding who he would vote for in the next presidential election which is in four years.

[BugHunt]

The war party.:)


Do they have moar streamers and ribbons? ;)

[budgie]

Petraeus is smart and popular but being a good general doesn't necessarily make a good President. His wartime record is admirable, but he's no Ike and this is not the 1940s. His warfighting credentials may not be as important to his chances of getting elected if Iraq is a distant memory by then.

Besides, if the nation his happy with the way the sitting President is handling things at the time, a strong contender might still have little chance of toppling him. I know it seems like some kind of Republican fantasy that Petraeus would come like a knight in shining armour to dethrone Obama but that's assuming Obama does a poor enough job in his first term.

[MichaelF]

The difference between a notional "Petraeus 2012" run and the last couple of Generals-turned-politicians (Wes Clark most recently), is that Petraeus is actually extremely popular with the Veterans groups (American Legion, VFW). About 4-5 million, all up, who can be very, very influential.

These groups would have crawled across broken glass to vote AGAINST Clark, who was uniformly loathed by everyone who ever served under or with him (and everyone they talked to, it being a small Army).

Without the Legion and VFW on your side (or worse, against you), campaigning as "General X" is a lost cause. With them, you're a juggernaught.

[XShipRider]

Former flag-level officers don't necessarily make good politicians. The one problem they have is they are usually aligned, or perceived to be, with one of the parties. The opposing party often starts maligning the former flag for "not doing" this or that, not speaking up against this or that, etc. This is unfortunate because once the uniform comes off post retirement the officer should be judged on future intentions and plans not past orders.

[Thor]

These groups would have crawled across broken glass to vote AGAINST Clark, who was uniformly loathed by everyone who ever served under or with him (and everyone they talked to, it being a small Army).

Why is Clark so unpopular then?

[MichaelF]

Why is Clark so unpopular then?

He was (is) a political climber who never ever hesitated to throw his subordinates under the bus IOT insulate himself from any sort of negative feedback. He was also a maniacal micromanager.

He made himself (via the above and a natural obsequiousness that borders on mythic) very popular with his superiors. This backfired when he rose to upper Field and Flag rank, where his subordinates wildly outnumbered his superiors and word rapidly spread as to his nature.

He's also the architect of the Priština Incident, which resulted in General Mike Jackson (UK) telling him to sod off (Clark wanted to drop a UK para battalion on top of a column of Russian peacekeepers, to snag the airport). This was the last straw, getting him retired (hint: they replaced him with an officer who could not be given a regular promotion, due to an extramarital affair), leaving SACEUR a year and a half early.

He's basically the male version of LtGen Claudia Kennedy.

When it's impossible to find a former subordinate willing to say something positive about your leadership....well, it doesn't speak well of an officer. Good leaders might not be liked, but they are always respected.

[perdurabo]

I've served under him twice. One of the smartest men walking the Earth.

I'd vote for him in a second.
thats sounds bad dude but i'm sure he can get ghay votes with this p-) j/k don't kill me i couldn't resist :oops:

[Bringer of Greater Things]

It would be funny if the Sean Hannity types built up all sorts of hype around him just for him to announce later that he's pro-abortion or pro-gay-marriage.

[philbob]

It would be funny if the Sean Hannity types built up all sorts of hype around him just for him to announce later that he's pro-abortion or pro-gay-marriage.

That would be lulz upon lulz

[LineDoggie]

Why is Clark so unpopular then?
Wes the Weasel? Jesus cant even count all the reasons, lets just say he's a Douche, whos'a Legend in his own mind........

[I can't think of a name]

Clark was also commander of 1st CAV Division when the Clintons released them on Waco.

The guy is in the Clinton's pocket and he was sent into the 2004 Dem Presidential Primary to pull votes from Howard Dean.

[Jobu]

From what I've seen of him so far, Petraeus would be a good choice. I'm hoping he's a fiscal conservative. I don't really give a crap about social issues.

I'd certainly vote for him over a potential Obama second term, that's for damn sure.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

Petreaus is definitely Presidential material. BIG WHOOP

[Skutatos]

Its a little early to be thinking about 2012 imo. Lets see what happens the next few years and find out what kind of president we have and/or need by then.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Well, let's take a look at the History books for Military Men (or more precisely, men who ran and won mostly on their Military background--for example, Carter and Bush the elder both served in the Military, but it wasn't the primary reason people knew them)

George Washington--That worked out pretty well.

Andrew Jackson--Generally well-regarded, but didn't do well for the economy.

W.H. Harrison--Died 32 days after taking office--Old Tippecanoe too old.

Zachary Taylor--Old Rough and Ready not ready for Presidental Office

Ulysses Grant--Personally honest in what has been called the most corrupt administration in American History

Rutherford Hayes--Not well known or highly regarded

James Garfield--Assiasinated.

T. Roosevelt--Might be a reach (he was Governor of New York and other offices besides being a Rough rider), but historians have been kind to him recently.

Eisenhower--Highly respected but thought to be a lightweight when president, history has been much kinder recently as more of what he accomplished comes to light.

There have been some Military losers too:

Winfield Scott--Tried several times in the 1840's/1850's but never quite made it.

George McClellan--Tried to unseat Lincoln in 1864 on a ticket that might have established the Confederacy.

McArthur--Never ran, but was most certainly willing to be 'gifted' with the nomination....

Colin Powell--Talked about a lot, probably has ended that with his endorsement of Obama.

So Petraus might be capable, but being a capable military leader means--that you are a capable military leader. Being able to direct a huge and complex organization successsfully is important--but do you really want Bill Gates as President? p-)

Press on.

[LineDoggie]

Petreaus is definitely Presidential material. BIG WHOOP

Sorry i see your choice of Mumia Abu Jamal wont make it :)

[Parx400]

Well, let's take a look at the History books for Military Men (or more precisely, men who ran and won mostly on their Military background--for example, Carter and Bush the elder both served in the Military, but it wasn't the primary reason people knew them)

George Washington--That worked out pretty well.

Andrew Jackson--Generally well-regarded, but didn't do well for the economy.

W.H. Harrison--Died 32 days after taking office--Old Tippecanoe too old.

Zachary Taylor--Old Rough and Ready not ready for Presidental Office

Ulysses Grant--Personally honest in what has been called the most corrupt administration in American History

Rutherford Hayes--Not well known or highly regarded

James Garfield--Assiasinated.

T. Roosevelt--Might be a reach (he was Governor of New York and other offices besides being a Rough rider), but historians have been kind to him recently.

Eisenhower--Highly respected but thought to be a lightweight when president, history has been much kinder recently as more of what he accomplished comes to light.

There have been some Military losers too:

Winfield Scott--Tried several times in the 1840's/1850's but never quite made it.

George McClellan--Tried to unseat Lincoln in 1864 on a ticket that might have established the Confederacy.

McArthur--Never ran, but was most certainly willing to be 'gifted' with the nomination....

Colin Powell--Talked about a lot, probably has ended that with his endorsement of Obama.

So Petraus might be capable, but being a capable military leader means--that you are a capable military leader. Being able to direct a huge and complex organization successsfully is important--but do you really want Bill Gates as President? p-)

Press on.


I would vote for Bill Gates in a heart beat.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

A good military leader does not always equate to a good political leader.

[El Diablo Rojo]

A good military leader does not always equate to a good political leader.
It seems like to would. But then, some people are moved by different things.

[BugHunt]

A good military leader does not always equate to a good political leader.

Hitler would disagree.

[Fiber]

Then Hitler is an idiot.

[LineDoggie]

Hitler would disagree.

pssst, Hitler was a Lance Jack, hardly a Military Leader.....:roll: