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.

Not only did Petraeus pacify Iraq — he took the strategy of the war from the hands of pinhead neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Paul Bremer and turned it into a largely realist mission. At least, insofar as he could, given that his country, the world’s most powerful and successful liberal democracy, had invaded that country to make it anew in its own image.

So I am missing from Ross any information that substantiates Petraeus’ “neocon” credentials, in reputation or in deed. We are left to laugh at the wrongheaded 2007 predictions of the American Conservative vintage 2007.

But as Billy Mays would say, but wait, there’s more!

Ross goes on to argue that Scarborough — Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC host — is the hope of ‘true’ conservatives.

But let’s just hope that Scarborough isn’t pushed into 2012 by those who want it to be principled conservatism that takes the fall.

Lets put this up front — the author is sympathetic to the idea that there are persons within the Republican camp who wish principled conservatives — Burkean conservatives — to take the fall for the pre-Obama administration debacle that was the GOP.

But the other is mystified at Ross’s argument that Scarborough — Scarborough! – is the hope of these principled conservatives.

Granted, I understand he had a fairly consistently conservative voting record as a congressman. However, the divorced and remarried Scarborough has proven himself prone to crude outbursts while on-air. Further, the man is a consummate D.C. insider who’s set a moderate tack ever since becoming a MSNBC host.

If anyone wants to make the case for Scarborough as the hope of true conservatives, the author is all ears.

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.