Dead Presidents

Historical facts, thoughts, ramblings and collections on the Presidency and about the Presidents of the United States.

By Anthony Bergen
E-Mail: bergen.anthony@gmail.com
Posts tagged "General Petraeus"
Asker Anonymous Asks:
What if we had McRaven/Petraeus for a third party?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

Third-party candidacies for the Presidency are very difficult, so a major party nomination would be the way to go. Third-party candidates not only have to establish their party and platform, but have to work extra hard to ensure that they have a place on the ballot in all 50 states once Election Day rolls around. It’s not impossible, but it isn’t easy. Plus, third-party candidates — especially if it were a candidate like Admiral McRaven or General Petraeus — would siphon votes off from the Republican nominee and Democratic nominee, and it would likely result in one of the major party candidates winning the election with a minority of votes which makes the new President pretty weak from the outset. In a three-way race (in Presidential politics), one of the major parties will almost always win because they have a stronger and more expansive base than a brand-new third-party trying to build on a foundation that isn’t very solid yet. For a third-party Presidential candidate to have a serious chance of being elected, that third-party needs to have been extant for at least one or two previous election cycles. That gives the third-party a chance to establish name recognition, demonstrate the party’s ideology, raise money, build organizations throughout the country, and, hopefully, elect officials to offices further down the ballot (House, Senate, Governor) prior to running a candidate with a real shot at the Presidency.

Also, a McRaven/Petraeus ticket would be far too top-heavy when it comes to the military. If Admiral McRaven (or General Petraeus) were the Presidential nominee, it would make better sense politically to balance the ticket with a civilian. If the goal was to run a ticket that wasn’t “politics as usual” (which would be the best strategy), I’d suggest picking a business leader as the running mate. If not a business leader, I’d steer clear of Congress and recommend a politician not tarnished by Washington’s toxic political climate — a statewide elected official such as a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General, or even someone from the Judiciary. But if I’m a political strategist or party leader, I wouldn’t run two military commanders — even two commanders as capable and respected as Admiral McRaven and General Petraeus — together on the same ticket.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Are there any wild card candidates who would make a difference if they ran for president in 2016?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

I don’t know what party he belongs to, but if the GOP were smart, they’d be BEGGING Admiral William McRaven to declare that he is Republican and anoint him as their 2016 Presidential nominee tomorrow. Admiral McRaven is a star, he’s a hell of a public speaker, he’s the commander of the special operations forces that played such an integral part in the War on Terror, and while President Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Admiral McRaven planned the details and oversaw the operation as it was being carried out. General David Petraeus would have been a perfect choice before his extramarital affair took a bit of the shine off of him (General Petraeus could still bounce back from that if he wanted to run); Admiral McRaven would be a dangerous candidate against any of the most-talked-about potential 2016 candidates. He could even beat Hillary Clinton.

Would he run? I don’t know. And if Admiral McRaven did run, is he even a Republican? That’s what the GOP should be trying to figure out. Like I said, General Petraeus could rise above the affair he had and still be a Presidential contender, so I think the GOP should be targeting him, too, trying to ascertain whether he is a Republican, and urging him to consider seeking the Presidency.

We haven’t elected a President primarily known for his military career since Dwight D. Eisenhower, but we also haven’t had top-level military commanders seek the Presidency very often since then. General Wesley Clark sought the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination, but I thought his campaign was really low-key and half-assed. I actually supported General Clark at first in 2004, but it seemed like I was more excited about the prospect of his candidacy than the General was. Other than Clark, nobody primarily known for being a military commander has even sought a major party’s Presidential nomination since Eisenhower was elected. 

Al Gore will always be a potential wild card who could shake up the race, as well, but someone like Admiral McRaven would really turn things on their head. The least popular Americans in the country right now are politicians with the exception of a few state Governors who still enjoy a bit of popularity in their own regions but are largely unknown outside of that area. Who better to run for President at a time when Americans have a record-low opinion of politicians than someone who ISN’T a politician? It is difficult for non-politicians to gain traction in Presidential elections because as unpopular as politicians might be, the electorate immediately wonders whether a person who hasn’t held elective office is qualified to lead. Those questions would be null-and-void with Admiral William McRaven. Of course he is qualified to lead, and he’s not only undamaged by the toxic political climate of the 21st Century but he’s so above politics that we don’t even know what party he belongs to until he tells us. I never mention him with potential 2016 candidates because I’ve never heard his name connected with a possible run (or connected with any of the parties), but Admiral McRaven could win and win big (even against Hillary Clinton) if he could be convinced to run.

Color me surprised.

Possibly, but there’s an important factor to that youth opposition that a lot of these “slacktivists” who use social networking and Occupy-type protests to make a lot of noise don’t recognize:  their opposition only means something if they vote. 
See, Romney’s supporters will vote on Election Day.  If General Petraeus was a candidate, his supporters would vote on Election Day.  But the young people and many of the minorities who oppose Romney?  It’s a chore to get many of them out to vote.  If you’re reading this website or Politico and oppose Romney, chances are that you are politically active and will vote.  Yet, I would imagine that most of those young people who casually watch parts of the debates and Tweet about how Romney is part of the 1% will scream and yell and protest the GOP, but they won’t necessarily go vote on Election Day.  And, when push comes to shove, that’s all that matters.
Just to compare and contrast Romney with a hypothetical candidacy by Petraeus, while I do think a lot of the younger people who opposed the war would oppose General Petraeus, I think it would be offset by seniors (who love a leader like Petraeus) and veterans, including a lot of the younger veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan while General Petraeus was the commander of our forces.  General Petraeus would motivate a lot more supporters to get to the polls than Romney, he would definitely earn a lot more crossover votes than Romney, and any opposition would be offset by gains in areas that Romney wouldn’t be as successful.  General Petraeus would be a formidable candidate for President, no matter what party he represented or who he faced in the campaign.

Possibly, but there’s an important factor to that youth opposition that a lot of these “slacktivists” who use social networking and Occupy-type protests to make a lot of noise don’t recognize:  their opposition only means something if they vote. 

See, Romney’s supporters will vote on Election Day.  If General Petraeus was a candidate, his supporters would vote on Election Day.  But the young people and many of the minorities who oppose Romney?  It’s a chore to get many of them out to vote.  If you’re reading this website or Politico and oppose Romney, chances are that you are politically active and will vote.  Yet, I would imagine that most of those young people who casually watch parts of the debates and Tweet about how Romney is part of the 1% will scream and yell and protest the GOP, but they won’t necessarily go vote on Election Day.  And, when push comes to shove, that’s all that matters.

Just to compare and contrast Romney with a hypothetical candidacy by Petraeus, while I do think a lot of the younger people who opposed the war would oppose General Petraeus, I think it would be offset by seniors (who love a leader like Petraeus) and veterans, including a lot of the younger veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan while General Petraeus was the commander of our forces.  General Petraeus would motivate a lot more supporters to get to the polls than Romney, he would definitely earn a lot more crossover votes than Romney, and any opposition would be offset by gains in areas that Romney wouldn’t be as successful.  General Petraeus would be a formidable candidate for President, no matter what party he represented or who he faced in the campaign.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
How would you feel about a Petraeus presidential ticket? Also, were you disappointed when Colin Powell resigned as SoS?
deadpresidents deadpresidents Said:

General Petraeus would be a hell of a Presidential candidate.  We don’t know for sure which party the General belongs to, but I think most people believe that he is a Republican.  If General Petraeus was the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 instead of Mitt Romney, I think President Obama would probably go ahead and start getting some packing done for his move back to Chicago.  I think Petraeus would have beaten Obama pretty handily.  The fact that the President put the General in charge of the CIA may not have been politically motivated, but it was undoubtedly politically beneficial to get Petraeus out of the immediate public eye and set up at Langley.

As for Colin Powell, I was disappointed in him long before his resignation as Secretary of State.  General Powell was one of the most respected Americans alive when he joined President George W. Bush’s Cabinet in 2001 and, from the outset, it appeared that Powell would be the voice of reason in the Bush Administration following 9/11 as the neo-conservatives were clamoring for war in Iraq.  I lost so much respect for General Powell because he knew war with Iraq was wrong, he clearly didn’t believe war in Iraq was necessary, and yet he still went to the United Nations and did the Bush Administration’s bidding in an attempt to build a coalition.  In Powell’s mind, I believe he felt he was being a good, loyal soldier in the service of his President, but serving his President conflicted with how best to serve his country.  It was sad to see Powell in that role (not Secretary of State, but the role he played in the lead-up to the Iraq War).  That’s when I was disappointed in General Powell, and it’s a shame because of Powell’s stature.  Many younger Americans don’t realize that, 12 years before Barack Obama was elected President, Colin Powell seriously weighed taking on Bill Clinton in Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.  Had General Powell run in ‘96, he definitely would have been the GOP nominee and probably would have been elected the first black President.  In his excellent book about the 1996 campaign, The Choice (BOOKKINDLE), Bob Woodward notes that Powell’s decision not to run led to genuine relief for President Clinton and Clinton’s political aides.