# So, is Gen. Petraeus part of the GOP caucus? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 2, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359 "2007-04-02T00:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/21 "2007-04-02T15:36:37Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Is that what passes for deep thought from the ‘reality based community’? I remember not too long ago when Patraeus was the darling of the Democrats. And I believe he was nominated with a unanimous vote. What’s changed? The fact that he’s not sputtering the doom and gloom lines the Democrats want? [/QUOTE] If not him it would have been another trained soldier who is following orders. They gave the prez who he wanted. They really had to. He was nominated because some other generals actually questioned the war and how rosily it was going along. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/22 "2007-04-02T15:59:12Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] I’m less than comfortable that Gen. Petraeus spoke only to the Republican caucus, but I think you may have a point. If the Congressional Women’s Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus (to name two bipartisan groups I know exist) had invited him, yes, he should have spoken with them in their oversight role. Agreed that the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress both have a responsibility to provide oversight. This does _look_ partisan, but we don’t have all the facts. [/QUOTE] Here is where the dividing line is for me. If General Petraeus had appeared on the Capitol steps with the Republican caucus, this would have been a gathering intended to generate public partisan advantage. He would have been prohibited from appearing at such an event by military regulations. Behind closed doors, it is a meeting with congressional representatives, which he is permitted to attend given his requirement to keep the legislative branch up to date. There is nothing keeping him from meeting one representative for a talk, so there is similarly nothing preventing him from talking to a group. However, appearing at a campaign rally for just one representative would be ethically questionable, as would a public gathering of the nature I described above. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/23 "2007-04-02T16:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Behind closed doors, it is a meeting with congressional representatives, which he is permitted to attend given his requirement to keep the legislative branch up to date. [/quote] Essentially all the members of one party and none of the other is a funny definition of “the legislative branch.” Accordingly, he’s only keeping the Congressional Pubbies up to date. > [@](#): > > There is nothing keeping him from meeting one representative for a talk, so there is similarly nothing preventing him from talking to a group. Did a little Googling, and came across [this summary](http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm) of what active-duty military can and cannot do: > [@](#): > > **Cannot -** Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. The GOP Congressional caucus is a partisan political gathering. Period. And Petraeus was speaking before it. Is my source interpreting the rules correctly? If so, that’s game. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/24 "2007-04-02T16:51:19Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] There is nothing keeping him from meeting one representative for a talk, so there is similarly nothing preventing him from talking to a group. [/QUOTE] Did a little Googling, and came across [DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty”, August 2, 2004](http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/134410.htm), which might have some relevance: > [@](#): > > E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES > > In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not: > > … > > E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. The GOP Congressional Caucus is unquestionably a “gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.” Petraeus was speaking before it. Any further discussion? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/25 "2007-04-02T16:52:51Z")
Hadn’t even realized I’d posted #23 - must’ve hit the button by accident. #24 is better sourced; forget about #23. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/26 "2007-04-02T16:56:44Z")
[The rules.](https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETIntranet/Databases/Administrative+Law/soco.nsf/(JAGCNetDocID)/07A2F825B351EB6D85256EC4004F9DF8/$FILE/DoDD%201344.10%20(2%20Aug%202004).pdf) > [@](#): > > Department of Defense Directive NUMBER 1344.10, August 2, 2004 > SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty > > …E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES > In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and > references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not: > E3.3.1. Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the > course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others. > E3.3.2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government, > except as authorized in paragraph 4.2., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office. > E3.3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions > (except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make **public** speeches in the course > thereof. > E3.3.4. Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian > officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political > objective or cause, including a political campaign. > E3.3.5. Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed > Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of > promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign. > E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written > by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or > cause. > DODD 1344.10, August 2, 2004 > 11 ENCLOSURE 3 > E3.3.7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan > political club. > **E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that > promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.** > E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as > an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. > E3.3.10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan > political group or distribute partisan political literature. > E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. > 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d). > E3.3.12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during > a campaign or on an election day. > E3.3.13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or > facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate. > E3.3.14. March or ride in a partisan political parade. > E3.3.15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a > bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle. > E3.3.16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to > the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or > candidate. > E3.3.17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and > similar fundraising events. > E3.3.18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed > Forces. > E3.4. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED > Some activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of > section 4. of this Directive or section E3.3. of this enclosure. In determining whether > an activity violates the traditional concept that Service members should not engage in > DODD 1344.10, August 2, 2004 > 12 ENCLOSURE 3 > partisan political activity, rules of reason and common sense shall apply. Any activity > that may be viewed as associating the Department of Defense or the Department of > Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, or any component of these > Departments directly or indirectly with a partisan political activity shall be avoided. Bolding mine. Now, it seems to me that there is a conflict here between General Petraeus’ responsibility to meet with members of Congress and his obligation not to address partisan gatherings. This isn’t surprising, ethical conflicts happen sometimes, and become more hard to deal with when rank increases. I submit that keeping the meeting private and thus not associating the military with the Republicans in a public rally satisfied the general’s conflicting obligations. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/27 "2007-04-02T17:10:27Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Is that what passes for deep thought from the ‘reality based community’? I remember not too long ago when Patraeus was the darling of the Democrats. And I believe he was nominated with a unanimous vote. What’s changed? The fact that he’s not sputtering the doom and gloom lines the Democrats want? [/QUOTE] Let me help you out a bit, **Sam**. You’ve got that “hive mind” delusion operating again, the notion that the Left is somehow uniform of opinion, in such a way that a “unanimous vote” is possible. It isn’t, not even close. I sympathize with your plight, charges of hypocrisy being about all you’ve got left. So lets just do it, shall we? The left is rife with hypocrisy. Loaded with it, up to the gunwales, great hulking gobs of the stuff. Goes with being human, part of the deal. Pretty sure I’m guilty of it myself, and if I hadn’t so many memory issues, I might even be able to pinpoint an example. I will rely upon your generosity to accept my statement at face value. And, of course, “our” hypocricy isn’t getting a bunch of folks killed, we haven’t a lot to apologize for. We were right about this crap festival four years ago, been right all along, what have we to regret? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/28 "2007-04-02T17:16:37Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] [The rules.](https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETIntranet/Databases/Administrative+Law/soco.nsf/(JAGCNetDocID)/07A2F825B351EB6D85256EC4004F9DF8/$FILE/DoDD%201344.10%20(2%20Aug%202004).pdf) Bolding mine. Now, it seems to me that there is a conflict here between General Petraeus’ responsibility to meet with members of Congress and his obligation not to address partisan gatherings. This isn’t surprising, ethical conflicts happen sometimes, and vite the Dems. I’ll be happy to brief everyone at once."become more hard to deal with when rank increases. [/quote] What’s the conflict? All he had to do was tell the GOP Caucus, “Sorry, but you’ll have to include the Dems. Then I can brief all of you at once.” That ‘conflict’ took me, what, five seconds to resolve? > [@](#): > > I submit that keeping the meeting private and thus not associating the military with the Republicans in a public rally satisfied the general’s conflicting obligations. How do you see that? They have a list of prohibited activities. They’re supposed to NOT do 3.3.1 AND 3.3.2 AND 3.3.3 AND … AND 3.3.17 AND 3.3.18. They can neither make public speeches in political campaigns, NOR speak before partisan gatherings. A private speech means he’s not violating 3.3.3, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s violating 3.3.8. There are laws against running red lights, and there are speed limit laws. But obeying the speed limit law doesn’t mean I can run a red light while doing so. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/29 "2007-04-02T17:16:38Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Any further discussion? [/QUOTE] I have a comment: Now that Garry Trudeau has forever associated Shrubya with Imperial Rome, with that well-worn Imperator’s helmet icon, I think it’s a hoot that Bush chose as his theater commander a man who’s name calls to mind ancient texts such as _Caesar’s Commentaries on the Punic Wars._ That is all. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/30 "2007-04-02T17:25:15Z")
When does it cease to be a partisan gathering? Would two congressmen of the same party together constitute an assembly a general could not brief? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/31 "2007-04-02T17:26:22Z")
Was he in uniform when he appeared there? If so, I imagine that before going to the caucus he had approval from a superior and that he covered his ass, the Army is as political as anything else and one who rises to the position Gen. Petraeus has would be very adept at inter-service politics and I doubt he’d attend the caucus without reason to be very sure it was kosher. Important issues would also be where the meeting took place, and what the meeting was billed as, officially. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/32 "2007-04-02T17:40:35Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] When does it cease to be a partisan gathering? Would two congressmen of the same party together constitute an assembly a general could not brief? [/QUOTE] Who cares? There’s no doubt that a meeting of the Congressional GOP Caucus is a partisan gathering. We aren’t talking about some situation where Petraeus dropped in on Orrin Hatch, and John Cornyn happened to be visiting too. We’re talking about the whole freakin’ caucus, meeting in that capacity. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/33 "2007-04-02T17:44:23Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Was he in uniform when he appeared there? If so, I imagine that before going to the caucus he had approval from a superior and that he covered his ass, the Army is as political as anything else and one who rises to the position Gen. Petraeus has would be very adept at inter-service politics and I doubt he’d attend the caucus without reason to be very sure it was kosher. [/quote] OK then, under your scenario Petraeus’ _superior_ violated the rules insulating the military from partisan politics. That’s even worse. Fortunately, it’s just a hypothetical. > [@](#): > > Important issues would also be where the meeting took place, and what the meeting was billed as, officially. You think that the GOP Congressional Caucus just kinda met by accident? _Duuuuuuude._ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/34 "2007-04-02T17:49:11Z")
Sorry, I can’t get worked up over this. And I wouldn’t get worked up if the Democrats were involved, frankly. The members of Congress has a right to ask about how things are going. If the Democrats want to know the same information, they only need to ask General Petraeus. From what I’ve heard about the man, he’s quite forthcoming with his thoughts on doctrine and doesn’t sugarcoat conditions on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/35 "2007-04-02T17:55:05Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] OK then, under your scenario Petraeus’ _superior_ violated the rules insulating the military from partisan politics. That’s even worse. Fortunately, it’s just a hypothetical. [/quote] No, not necessarily. The reading of the rules doesn’t instantly mean you have to assume that any gathering of GOP Congressmen = a partisan political meeting. Even if it did, members of the military are _allowed_ to visit a partisan political meeting while not wearing uniform (do we know how the General was dressed for the meeting?) Like I said, if he was in uniform he’s probably been assured by someone knowledgeable on how those regulations are enforced in common practice that he was in the clear. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/36 "2007-04-02T18:11:39Z")
Is there any Democrat not prowling around message boards that is going to make an issue over this? I don’t see it, myself. Especially considering that General Petraeus reportedly has good working relationships with quite a few Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/37 "2007-04-02T18:11:52Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Sorry, I can’t get worked up over this. And I wouldn’t get worked up if the Democrats were involved, frankly. [/QUOTE] You are not alone in your lack of outrage here. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/38 "2007-04-02T18:26:26Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Sorry, I can’t get worked up over this. And I wouldn’t get worked up if the Democrats were involved, frankly. [/quote] Yeah, dude. In your _eighth_ post in this thread, you say it isn’t that big a deal. It’s a big deal because the Bush Administration is politicizing vast tracts of the Executive Branch that are _supposed_ to execute the laws in a nonpartisan manner. The one branch that absolutely _must not_ let itself be used for partisan gain is the military. We haven’t had a coup in the United States, and we don’t want to let it ever be a possibility. > [@](#): > > The members of Congress has a right to ask about how things are going. If the Democrats want to know the same information, they only need to ask General Petraeus. Have you verified with his office that he’s willing to find time to meet with the Democratic Caucus? Or are you just making shit up? No matter. He’s not supposed to. That’s what the rules say. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/39 "2007-04-02T18:27:37Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] No, not necessarily. The reading of the rules doesn’t instantly mean you have to assume that any gathering of GOP Congressmen = a partisan political meeting. Even if it did, members of the military are _allowed_ to visit a partisan political meeting while not wearing uniform [/QUOTE] As a _spectator_. Which he was not. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359/40 "2007-04-02T18:55:01Z")
I think perhaps some definition of terms is in order. A bit of wiki research has led me to the conclusion that there is no Congressional Republican caucus. There is a Congressional Democratic caucus, but the Republican counterpart is known as the Republican Conference of the U. S. House of Representatives. We’re probably not well-served by a lot of quibbling over a colloquial reference to the Republican Conference as a “caucus”, so let’s let that slide… House [rules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus#Rules) allow Members to form Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) to pursue common legislative objectives. Among the items of information that each CMO must submit to the Committee on House Administration upon registration is the CMO’s Statement of Purpose. The [Republican Conference website](http://www.gop.gov/) is not particularly forthcoming about their statement of purpose. I will note that their website is not identical to the Committee on House Administration, and as such the Conference has no obligation to post its statement of purpose there. By contrast, the [Democratic Caucus website](http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BEC733C3E-49B8-4C11-80F6-EE0C236A3B87%7D&DE=%7BEB1E3761-7CD6-4485-91AC-0D4506F9A3DC%7D) provides this statement that seems to serve the same function as a statement of purpose: > [@](#): > > The Democratic Caucus is a service-oriented organization for all Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. As the only subgroup within the House of which every Democrat is a Member, the Caucus seeks to achieve consensus and to ensure Members have the tools to implement it. > > The Caucus nominates and elects the House Democratic Leadership, approves committee assignments, makes Caucus rules, enforces party discipline, and serves as a forum to develop and communicate party policy and legislative priorities. It accomplishes these tasks through weekly Caucus Meetings, on-going Issue Task Forces, the yearly Caucus Issues Conference, periodic special events, and continual Member-to-Member communication. . It _is_ pretty clear, from context, that the Republican Conference appears to be a functional mirror image of the Democratic Caucus. I guess what is left to be argued over is whether “common legislative objectives” in this context must needs be considered “partisan purposes” as proscribed in DODD 1344.10, August 2, 2004 11 ENCLOSURE 3 **E3.3.8** (_cf._ **Mr. Moto** ’s list in post #26, above). In preparation for that argument, I will note that a partisan legislative agenda is not necessarily the same as a partisan electoral agenda. Whether the intent of the DoD Directive is to prohibit one and allow the other, or to prohibit both will be crucial to the outcome of the argument (IMHO). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-gen-petraeus-part-of-the-gop-caucus/398359.md?page=3)