Petraeus For President in 2012?

The American Conservative blog has a snide, snarky post on their “Post Right” blog by Jack Ross arguing Joe Scarborough — not Gen. David Petraeus — is the better and more probable candidate of the two. If you recall, a recent Politico article featured both as potential 2012 candidates.

Ross argues that Petraeus was once favored by neo-cons, but no longer,

[T]hey also talk up the tragic David Petraeus, not even as a sop to the neocons, who are totally over him, but to one-foot-in-the-graver Bob Dole.

To substantiate his point that the “tragic” Petraeus was a candidate favored by the neocons, Ross links to an old American Conservative article, “Sycophant Savior,” that looks rather shabby in retrospect.

Essentially, Andrew Bacevich argues in “Sycophant Savior” that not only was the situation in Iraq (in October 2007) not improving, but that Petraeus had squandered a major chance to build on any political momentum there was at the time to ask for more troops, who could have successfully pacified Iraq.

We know now that Petraeus largely did pacify Iraq. We know now that Petraeus is the Ben Bernanke of the Iraq war — the perfect man for the job who was able to rely on his unique training to turn the situation around. It’s not that Petraeus turned Iraq into a glistening modern liberal democracy — that was always a pipe dream. But he took his counterinsurgency training — which he literally wrote the book for — and dramatically decreased sectarian violence in that country.

Read more…

AllahPundit at Hot Air cites a Gen. Petraeus interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News as a “rather definitive[]” answer from Petraeus about whether he would ever run for President.

In the interview, Wallace asks Petraeus if he has any interest running for president. Petraeus responds,

None Chris at all, thank you. I have great respect for those who do choose to serve our country that way. I’ve chosen to serve our country in uniform, and I think that Gen. Sherman had it right when he gave what is now commonly referred to as a Sherman-esque response when asked a similar question.

Then Wallace asks if Petraeus means to say that he is giving a Sherman-esque response, to which Petraeus says,

[Laughs] I am Chris and I don’t think it would ever get to that point anyway.

For those who don’t know, Gen. William Sherman, a famous Civil War general notable for his “scorched earth” tactics against the South, said of running for office that “If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”

A few observations:

1. Petraeus only references Sherman’s response at first, rather than saying he is offering the same response. Why? When pressed, he does admit that he is making the same response, but it’s notable that he would have only reference it had he not been pressed.

2. Petraeus seems more nervous about his response to this question than other questions.

3. He also has clearly rehearsed his answer to the question, which means he has considered his response. Although it is possible that he could have planned his response even without interest for eventually running, it’s at least on his mind. And if he weren’t interested in running at all, would he need to rehearse his answer?

So is Petraeus’ answer as “definitive” as AllahPundit would have us believe? Readers, do you have any thoughts?

Senior Republican party mainstay and one-time presidential nominee Bob Dole is urging Gen. David Petraeus to run for president in 2012, Politico reports.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas . . . told POLITICO that he would like to see Army four-star Gen. David Petraeus — the head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan — run for president as a latter-day Ike.

The interest of such a senior Republican is breathtaking for long-time watchers of Petraeus’ possible political future, because until now speculation was limited to the media rather than any major political players.

The article continues,

“Well, I’d like to see Gen. Petraeus warm up,” Dole said. “I don’t know anything about his politics, whether he has an interest. It’s kind of a time for another Eisenhower, in my view.”

This isn’t the first time the popular general’s name has been floated as a possible GOP savior — and it won’t be the last. Petraeus has political impulses but hasn’t revealed if they are conservative ones, and he might not even be a Republican.

Dole’s lack of knowledge of Petraeus’ political leanings is intriguing. Presumably, such a veteran pol would have inquired about the matter, but it appears that quest has been fruitless.

Petraeus could be keeping his cards so close to the vest because he wants to avoid even the hint of impropriety, especially as he has been criticized for how politically adept he is as a general.

But Petraeus followers this author has spoken with doubt he’s a Democrat.

The article continues,

[Dan Senor, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Bush administration veteran] is skeptical, even though Petraeus would be an appealing candidate. “He has to be focused like a laser beam on Afghanistan,” Senor said. “If he is as successful in Afghanistan as he was in Iraq, nothing else matters, and he will instantly be considered a top-tier candidate for president.

Timing is crucial for Petraeus. His record will always include rescuing Iraq from the precipice, but it is still being shaped by his actions abroad. He cannot leave the situation in Afghanistan prematurely for what appear to be political reasons. To do so would be to sacrifice that which makes him so attractive politically – his supreme competence and success militarily.

Interestingly, the Politico article forwards another name, Joe Scarborough,

MSNBC’s Scarborough has been told by some big donors that he should make a run in 2012.

“I think he does have aspirations. That is half of it: You got to want it,” said CNBC’s Donny Deutsche, a regular guest on Scarborough’s morning show, who recently raised the idea with him off-camera. “In this day and age, it would almost make sense for [a presidential candidate] to come from media.”

Scarborough, unlike Petraeus, has successfully run for office – as a class-of-1994 Republican representing Florida’s 1st District.

But Scarborough is Petraeus’ diametric opposite. Whereas Petraeus is cool and in control, Scarborough is emotional and unrestrained.

For instance, Scarborough has had repeated meltdowns on his MSNBC appearances that would likely make for great negative advertising. And who can forget him dropping an “F bomb” on television?

Nonetheless, major news for Petraeus watchers to see Dole so openly maneuvering behind Gen. Petraeus.

A graph of the Intrade futures market price for the prediction that Gen. David Petraeus will be the Republican Nominee in 2012:

You can buy Petraeus 2012 stickers here:

Petraeus 2012 Sticker

Kind of an ugly design if you ask me. Also, that picture makes the General look a bit geeky.

Reports that General David Petraeus will be delivering a commencement speech to the University of Iowa — in a state home to the nation’s first, trend-setting caucuses — have fueled speculation that Petraeus may indeed be considering a presidential run.

But the Weekly Standard, which originally reported the groundbreaking news, has hastily withdrawn the report, adding intrigue to the already heated matter.

Reid Wilson at the Capitol Hill rag The Hill reported,

General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, will make a high-profile speech in Iowa about a year and a half before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, according to a report.

But is the news true? The “interesting tidbit” reported by the Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb “was meant as joke,” Goldfarb said.

It is not clear whether Goldfarb’s about-face is an honest mistake or a hasty retreat from upstaging a later announcement from the Petraeus camp.

Goldfarb says he apologizes for the error. But which error is it?