Petraeus 2016!

[Profound Gibberish]

America has often relied on it's war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different.

I believe he would be able to bring both sides together--no matter what party he allies with--due to his background and record of achievement. He would also be the only one that could even possibly reign in the massive spending at the DOD.

He would need a VP with a solid economics & government background (i.e a Senator, Congressman, or non-crazy Governor) to balance out that potential weakness.

I really don't know much about his opinions on social issues, economics, or anything else--that what this forum is for. He would be 64 if elected, 72 after two terms. As healthy as he is he could keep up.

So what do you think?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dbx820

America has often relied on it's war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different.

Here's hoping that's post-war. I'm not sure I would count on that. And in any case the U.S. hasn't elected (or nominated) a general since Eisenhower won in '57. Given the way opinions about war have changed, I don't think history would be with him. I do think Qin Shi Huangdi would be with you even though Petraeus is about to become part of the Obama administration.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Eisenhower was the most famous man in the country, with the possible exception of Truman himself. I'm not going to spend even a minute discussing his role in WWII and how he was perceived. Before Eisenhower, the last president who was a general was Harrison. And we were in the middle of the Korean War in 1952, which the public wanted Eisenhower to solve.

Eisenhower was the ultimate special case. Modern America wants a civilian leader over the military.

That's in addition to the political skills needs to wage an endless campaign though primaries and caucuses. Does any career military man have that? Eisenhower didn't bother to campaign in 1952 in the modern sense. He hadn't declared any pledge to run when supporters entered his name into the New Hampshire primary. He won there, but nominations were still won at the conventions.

Can anyone see the American people dragging Petraeus into office?*

The silly season for 2016 has officially begun.



* True, Eisenhower was secretly in the crowd helping with the dragging. But that was a different world.

[Profound Gibberish]

Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by dbx820

Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it.

Taylor, Jackson.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dbx820

Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it.

Nobody said there wasn't. I said it hasn't happened in 50-odd years and Exapno Mapcase said it's happened once in the last 120 years, and the one time it did happen, circumstances were so different they were hardly comparable. I think the days of people asking retired war heroes to govern are long over.

[Chefguy]

Six out of 44 is hardly a precedent. Also, it's a stretch to call Harrison or Jackson a post-war president. True, they were elected after wars had been fought, but it wasn't an immediate thing.

[Chronos]

I think first we need to wait and see whether he even wants to run.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by dbx820

I believe he would be able to bring both sides together--no matter what party he allies with--due to his background and record of achievement.

I seriously doubt Jesus could bring both sides together.

And I'm fairly sure I won't be around in 2016 to care.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Foggy

And I'm fairly sure I won't be around in 2016 to care.

Foggy, you should talk to a qualified professional. Whether you do that or not, you're welcome to post about your feelings and your problems in the right venue, and this isn't it. Please don't do this again.

[gonzomax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank
We have a long history of military men in the presidency. Military service is discussed in almost every campaign.

[BobLibDem]

I don't think military men are particularly suited for politics. A guy like Petraeus is used to giving an order and seeing it carried out. Put him in the White House and he'd quickly learn that it doesn't work that way.

Could he bring the political factions together? As a Republican, maybe. As a Democrat, no way. Republicans are interested in cooperation with the president if and only if he's of their party. If not, they would much prefer that the ship of state sail straight into the reef so that they could control the wreckage.

[boytyperanma]

Exactly how many times does Petraeus have to say he's not running before people stop speculating on him running?

He's on the record multiple times saying he has no intention of running and has no interest in doing so ever.

Do people really want to elect someone whom they refuse to believe when he makes an absolute statement?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Taylor, Jackson.

And Harrison (the grandfather, who was rather better known as a general than his grandson).

[furt]

Originally Posted by dbx820

So what do you think?

I think it's been floated before, and that "sources close to Petraeus" said he has absolutely zero interest in politics.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by furt

I think it's been floated before, and that "sources close to Petraeus" said he has absolutely zero interest in politics.

I'd say this source is pretty dam close.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank
We have a long history of military men in the presidency. Military service is discussed in almost every campaign.

Military, yes. Commanding generals, no.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Exactly how many times does Petraeus have to say he's not running before people stop speculating on him running?

He's on the record multiple times saying he has no intention of running and has no interest in doing so ever.

Do people really want to elect someone whom they refuse to believe when he makes an absolute statement?

How many times? Until he runs., then no more speculation and time to find a running-mate.
I nominate Ron Paul for VP.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Foggy, you should talk to a qualified professional. Whether you do that or not, you're welcome to post about your feelings and your problems in the right venue, and this isn't it. Please don't do this again.

I apologize.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by dbx820

America has often relied on it's war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different.

I believe he would be able to bring both sides together--no matter what party he allies with--due to his background and record of achievement. He would also be the only one that could even possibly reign in the massive spending at the DOD.

He would need a VP with a solid economics & government background (i.e a Senator, Congressman, or non-crazy Governor) to balance out that potential weakness.

I really don't know much about his opinions on social issues, economics, or anything else--that what this forum is for. He would be 64 if elected, 72 after two terms. As healthy as he is he could keep up.

So what do you think?

I think the general is an impressive guy, with a lot of accomplishments.

I think he's probably too good for politics.

But do Generals make good presidents? Meh, not so much. Ike was a decent president, probably seriously underrated, but most people remember him for that WWII thing he did.

Grant was a great General and an awful president. Jackson was a great president, but would never be tolerated today. Then you have the "also a general" guys who followed Grant, who were generals, and really, only the history majors remember them today.

Then you have "Old Rough and Ready" and "Old Tippecanoe"- guys who got elected and died in office. I guess that's the problem when you have the word "Old" in your name.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Nobody said there wasn't. I said it hasn't happened in 50-odd years and Exapno Mapcase said it's happened once in the last 120 years, and the one time it did happen, circumstances were so different they were hardly comparable. I think the days of people asking retired war heroes to govern are long over.

And yet it was considered a virtual fait accompli that Colin Powell would have taken the nomination of any party he chose to run with. Well, at least pre-Bush.

[Chronos]

And, of course, Colin Powell had no interest whatsoever in running, either.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

And yet it was considered a virtual fait accompli that Colin Powell would have taken the nomination of any party he chose to run with. Well, at least pre-Bush.

There's no surer bet for the presidency than someone who isn't running.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I don't think military men are particularly suited for politics. A guy like Petraeus is used to giving an order and seeing it carried out. Put him in the White House and he'd quickly learn that it doesn't work that way.

We might need a "dictatorial" President (NOT a dictator) who can unite the country and through sheer popular will shove things through Congress (much as Lincoln and FDR did).

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

We might need a "dictatorial" President (NOT a dictator) who can unite the country and through sheer popular will shove things through Congress (much as Lincoln and FDR did).

I almost put my head right through the computer screen at that.

In my history books, Lincoln and FDR got as much work done with Congress - emphasis on with - because the opposition party had essentially collapsed. The only obstacles were opposing factions within the Republican and Democratic Party respectively. That helps a bill's passage remarkably.

That may happen again in some future, but without it there will never be a "dictatorial" president like the one you are falsely imagining.

[China Guy]

Clark didn't exactly set the world on fire. Neither did McCain.

Bush Sr at least was a combat vet and so the most recent one. Not sure if anyone could classify Junior as a veteran with a straight face.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

All the US presidents who were generals except maybe Jackson were not radicals of any sort: Washington, Taylor, Grant, Hayes (yes he was a general), Eisenhower.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

We might need a "dictatorial" President (NOT a dictator) who can unite the country and through sheer popular will shove things through Congress (much as Lincoln and FDR did).

And yet you hate Lyndon Johnson who was the last President who was able to shove things through Congress.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

All the US presidents who were generals except maybe Jackson were not radicals of any sort: Washington, Taylor, Grant, Hayes (yes he was a general), Eisenhower.

Washington led an armed insurrection against his government. That's about as radical as you can get.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

We might need a "dictatorial" President (NOT a dictator) who can unite the country and through sheer popular will shove things through Congress (much as Lincoln and FDR did).

You are still succumbing to the notion that a popular war hero can unite the whole country. Even at the height of Petraeus' popularity, this simply wasn't true. It is easy for a candidate to be popular when he's only known for one thing and doesn't have to take positions on any issues.

And Lincoln united the country? That would be news to Lincoln. He wasn't on the ballot in most of the Southern states during either election, the country was at war with itself for almost all of his presidency, and just after the war ended, he was shot to death. What he accomplished was not done through sheer popular will. I would say a large part of it was done because the people who were the most opposed to him started a war against the United States and had no political power during the war or immediately after it ended.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

There's no surer bet for the presidency than someone who isn't running.

This is the politics version of the old football chestnut "The fans don't like anyone more than the back up quarterback."

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Before Eisenhower, the last president who was a general was Harrison.

I admit, I couldn't resist double-checking this and was surprised to learn that both presidents named Harrison had been army generals: William Henry Harrison in the war of 1812, his grandson Benjamin Harrison in the Civil War.

I thought you were referring to the older Harrison and was preparing to point out Grant.