*
Longtime readers should remember my cheeky piece of 2007 political speculation which put General Dave Petraeus at the center of several presidential campaign scenarios. I evolved it to account for certain unfolding actions, but I still think any of them was sound enough to have been worthy of exploratory development by wealthy GOP "thought leaders." In all of its forms, my Petraeus speculation was based on certain non-farfetched assumptions. Not to belabor them at this time, here is the gist:1. To win back the White House, Republicans need to stick with the strategy of nominating someone who hasn't left a long trail through Washington or the public media, because quite apart from their professed ideologies, the field of "possibles" is littered with the unappealing and the unsavory. The reason that GOP officials or their pundits can launch trial balloons for people like Barbour, Bloomberg, and Huckabee is because launching them for the likes of Boehner, Christie, and Jindahl is, prima facie, preposterous.
2. The establishment's favorite political narrative is that our nation needs "bipartisan" solutions as put forth by "respectable moderates." It is desperate to find us candidates that can "rise above partisan bickering" to continue cramming the Reagan/Bush agenda down our throats.
The GOP is so bereft of candidates who are attractive on even a casual personal level that I was convinced then (and still am now) that their only hope to win the 2012 presidential election without stealing it is to appoint a "standard-bearer" who is cut from a completely different mold in terms of superficial appeal. I believe the Republicans will quickly discover that the time is ripe for General Petraeus to step forward. First, a general has "gravitas" with the American people and, as usual, US political culture makes people stop and think real hard before criticizing a soldier. Second, I believe that Republican power brokers and rank-and-file voters consider him telegenic, and potentially even "sexy." (I may have more to say on that later assuming I don't get skeeved out thinking about it.) And third, many people perceive military general officers as dutiful public servants who are not distracted by ego and ambition, so Petraeus would be helped to whatever extent Americans are looking for a Man On Horseback to "deliver" us from our troubles.
All of that is arguable, of course; I'm just saying that for a number of superficial and calculating reasons, Petraeus would be comparatively easy to sell to the "middle wing" of our body politic. I'll tackle this topic, hopefully, in small pieces as time passes instead of continually trying to formulate "unified field theories" like I did during 2007-08.
I'm dusting off this scenario, though, because certain people in the GOP seem to be thinking along approximately the same lines. For one thing, there is a group that thinks Petraeus is entitled to some rank inflation to put him on a par---militarily and in terms of visibility---with history's handful of five-star generals such as Dwight Eisenhower. And for another thing, this right-wing "Vets for Freedom" group is already trying to push Petraeus into the limelight in preparation for a presidency bid.
here's some caveats submitted for your approval. First, no one respectable will be the Republican nominee. The treasonous wingnut media and billionaire financiers will never allow it. Think about it-- they're viciously attacking a Republican now in charge of the House energy committee for the sin of proposing energy efficiency. Not "we disagree with using fluorescent lightbulbs", but he's a gay, Marxist, baby-eating viper. They're total assholes. Attacking a 10 star general wouldn't be beneath them.
ReplyDeleteBut-- guys like Petraeus, Bloomberg, maybe Voinivich from Ohio and the former Fla Gov Crist, etc could easily respond to this hostile takeover of Reps and join with some of your bluedog favorites to run a 3rd party campaign, a la Perot. And yeah, yeah, I know there's more than 2 parties now. But the tea baggers are really just a gang of ignorant thugs-- not a coherent political "party". The Greens and Social Democrats are historical artifacts of no consequence now. The extreme rightward push of the GOP demands that a 3rd party split off of it. What remains will be a pathetic, hateful and always-unsuccessful amalgam like the rightwing nationalistic loon parties in France and Germany and the rest of Europe.
And remember--Petraeus may sound and act like a savior and hero and to some like RubberCrutch, be physically attractive, but he is a General in charge of the biggest fiasco in US military history. There is no success or accomplishment from his last 10 years of work to run on. If he's smart he'll renounce Republican politics and join the Obama administration as they begin their 2nd term.
BO: as briefly as possible, both parties need a presidential candidate blessed with respectability by the establishment; Republicans will not nominate a "bomb-thrower," Tea Party or no Tea Party. No one in the GOP is a threat to Petraeus.
ReplyDeleteCompletely disagree about the ease of mounting a 3rd party campaign. Perot didn't succeed at anything except siphoning enough votes from Bush to deliver the election to Clinton. His party did not survive the few conventions it held afterwards. Also, we have lots of third parties, and they've always been irrelevant except as spoilers. Any insurgent from either party will have to take over the regular party machinery for purely practical reasons, such as organization, fundraising, GOTV, and so on. No third parties for you, unless you want to pick from among the fine selections molding out by the dumpster. The GOP can marginalize the Tea Partiers in a month if they have a good reason; Fox can even help with that.
Your point about Petraeus's record is exactly why people want to elevate him above the fray with an extra star. As far as I can tell, he has done nothing wrong: he has been given an impossible mission with no clear objective for success. Not his fault. Anyway, his record can be spun any way the establishment wants to spin it, like they did G.W. Bush's and John McCain's.
Last point: the one I make semi-facetiously about DP's "sex appeal" is completely serious in an important respect. Our society has been engineered to drip patriotic goo, from whatever orifice, whenever the national security state is invoked. This is part of the reason Americans have swallowed a big dickful of undue influence by the military-industrial complex. My hunch, backed by no studies at this point, is that highly militaristic societies harbor strong undercurrents of homoeroticism. So the pooched-out insolence of the good general's succulent, pouting rictus could be especially effective in courting that dependable voting bloc in any militaristic society: homophobes.
couple errors you're making here. First, the Republicans in no way can or will control what teabag faction does. They have no way to steer this mess.
ReplyDeleteNobody is saying a 3rd party effort would be successful. Not the first try anyway. The new rules for financing a campaign, however, make anything possible. General Electric could become the 3rd party. The SCOTUS says so.
If wit and looks were all a general needed to catch on then Wesley Clark should have been president by now.
Most of all, if Petraeus does leave the military for politics I'll bet it's in support of Obama or a Dem, not a Republican. I'll bet you a bottle of wine on that, Rubbie.
In the stage managed, kabuki horse race that is American two party presidential politics, beating an incumbant is difficult. And if the economy shows anything like a robust heart beat in a year or so -- even more so. Short of being caught with a dead hooker or live boy (as the saying goes; w. a tip of the hat to RCs H.E.ism) it would take a real scrapper to beat BHO.
ReplyDeleteDoes DP have a chance? Sure, and it might be a pretty good one. How test polls go with various demographic segments will tell the tale. You can bet that even now strategists are looking at various district projections and per state totals for various scenarios. With the census there's been some shifts of electoral college numbers. Romney and the other typical names (and pairings for VP) are almost certainly also being looked at. Although, it might be that a "dark horse" and, dare I say it, "outsider" (gag) might get the nod. A kind of building year as it were for both experience and momentum. For the regular contenders to go into a losing fight is not the path for political success and a pretty tough life decision. One loss can mean branding as a loser - and you're done for the big show. Of course there's the road-not-taken/missed opportunity aspect (i.e., Oliver Wendell Holmes) but that's necessarily in hindsight.
As to THE primary theme/message "It's the Economy Stupid" seems to be it. Although with evolving events something else might usurp it, but I wouldn't give anything new good odds. Hopefully it won't be something like "Stop the plague - now!" or "Vote for The Rapture and not Eternal Hell." The various demographic slices of course include: age groups (and their relative voter turn out), sex (where DP might do well - any ladies out there with an opinion? yea/nay/indifferent?), ethnic/immigrant, socio-economic, etc. The whole process seems something like Chinese algebra using Roman numerals whilst atuned to seasonal portents and foretellings. Full credit to RC for putting forth a definite opinion. Thus far no others seem forthcoming. Just for grins I'll say Kucinich with Ward Churchill getting the VP nod (just beating out Howard Stern).
Current official Tammany Hall odds: 8 to 5 for the incumbant.
Chester Alan Arthur