Petraeus For President in 2012?

Another day and three major new articles on a potential bid for the presidency by Gen. David Petraeus in 2012.

First, and most importantly, is an article by hawkish Democrat Peter Beinart of the Council on Foreign Relations suggesting Petraeus is Ike. We’ve heard this argument referenced before, but Beinart, well respected across both sides of the aisle, gives it new heft.

Pundits have mused about the Eisenhower-Petraeus comparison before, but the Afghanistan slugfest gives it new relevance. In the late Truman years, MacArthur, Joseph McCarthy, and the rest of the Republican right wing were a bit like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck today. They succeeded in bloodying the Democrats and scaring the country about overseas threats. But their overseas warmongering and domestic radicalism made them too extreme to ever win national office themselves.

Ike was different. He exploited the right’s hysteria, and yet sailed above it at the same time. He refused to condemn McCarthy, and implied that he too believed that Truman’s containment policies constituted appeasement, but he maintained his calm, soothing tone. As a war hero who stood apart from the partisan brawling around him, he retained a personal brand far stronger than either party’s.

While many have pointed to Petraeus’ strength as a general and the political popularity that could arise from his being such a symbol of competence, few have theorized on the intra-Republican dynamics Petraeus would need to navigate — and could exploit.

[P]olitically, [Ike and Petraeus are] in a parallel position. Today’s GOP has a right-wing base that can damage Obama, but none of its favorites have a prayer of winning the White House. The reason is that just like the Republican right of the early 1950s, which kept insisting that the New Deal constituted socialism (or fascism), today’s conservative activists have not accommodated themselves to some basic shifts in public mood.

Another advantage for Petraeus, in the same vein, would be that he doesn’t have a long record of controversial positions that could be used against him. People might ascribe their favored positions to Petraeus, who would remain vague about where he stands. Competence you can believe in, if you will.

Our second major article is from former-McCain adviser Mark McKinnon who says Petraeus isn’t a plausible candidate. I’ll let him make the case,

Petraeus fulfills the Republicans’ perpetual desire for an authoritative father figure, but that’s a psychological issue among Republicans, not an actual job qualification. It’s hard to see what else recommends him for the job. Beyond that, it’s hard to see how he “did a great job in Iraq” really creates a public demand for a President Petraeus. If he’s won the fight for Iraq, then he’s rendered his major skill set (counterinsurgency warfare) obsolete.

I agree that Petraeus can’t run simply on his record on Iraq. But can’t Petraeus use his success there as an example of his character, extrapolating his potential to other areas? And aren’t Afghanistan and Iran issues with the easy potential to become election changers? Right now it’s 24-7 health care, health care, health care — but that could change pretty quick.

Finally, as a friend of the author notes, “McKinnon worked for the guy whose entire candidacy was based on the war and military service/sacrifice, and Petraeus basically salvaged what was left of McKinnon’s previous candidate.”

In other words, McCain’s candidacy is the one McKinnon is now saying can’t win. Further, it was only Petraeus’ success in Iraq the resurrected McCain’s disaster of a primary campaign from the grave. If readers will remember, McCain went down with a sinking Iraq ship, only to find himself newly popular when the Petraeus surge actually worked.

Our final article today regards an interview with former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Frist, Paul Bedard reports, says Petraeus will not run for president.

“He will not do it, is not interested in it,” the former senator says. “He has made clear to me and to others that he’s not interested, and I believe him.”

First of all, if Petraeus had plans to run for president, do you think he would tell Bill Frist? No, he wouldn’t. Secondly, denials from Petraeus are old news. We have him on the record denying it, so the fact that he would also deny it to once-prominent Republican politicians is entirely unsurprising.

Third, as Dick Morris said in a memorable column detailing the myriad failures of Frist as Majority Leader,

If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) were still in his former occupation, he could well be sued by his 54 fellow Republicans, 99 senators, and the American people at large for malpractice. When he took the job as majority leader, I wrote in this space that the only thing in common between his new and old occupations was breaking ribs. But he failed to do even that!

Many believe Frist was a historically ineffective Majority Leader. Frist’s next stop is one of those National Journal front-of-the-book articles, “Whatever Happened to” so-and-so…

Anyway, the author digresses. The speculation is only mounting that the general who saved the war in Iraq will someday occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.