March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
There’s a new post up at FrumForum responding to my story from our May print edition that explored the possibility of a presidential run by Gen. David Petraeus. (The byline of the post says it was written by Orestes Brownson, but Joe Marier is claiming authorship on Twitter.)
The post says that my piece “doesn’t quite answer the question of whether it would be good for the Republican Party or for the conservative movement for a Petraeus candidacy to take place.” This is true, but I never set out to answer that question or to write a piece endorsing a Petraeus candidacy. It’s far too premature given that much is unknown about where Petraeus stands on many issues and we don’t know what kind of candidate he would be if he were to choose to run.
Commenting on my separate writing in which I’ve argued that Mitt Romney’s candidacy would make it difficult for Republicans to campaign against health care in 2012, the post says that, “forgive me for thinking that Petraeus would be no more likely to repeal Obamacare than Romney. He’d probably be less likely to introduce major reforms, because he’d probably keep more of a focus on foreign policy, and let the HHS bureaucracy run itself, no?”
Actually, I don’t think any of us can speculate on what domestic policy positions Petraeus may or may not take were he to run for president, so I don’t want to get into that game. This is different than the case of Romney, where we already have a track record on health care to examine.
Also, the post focuses on Petraeus’s prospects in 2012, but I cautioned in my piece that given his current commitments to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “if Petraeus were ever to decide to run for president, it’s unlikely to happen before the 2016 election.”
The post does make a valid point that by virtue of the fact that he’s an active military figure right now, he’s naturally associated with President Obama’s foreign policy, thus meaning that it could complicate efforts to run on the basis of fixing a foreign policy crisis caused by those policies. This may be true, but I think it would depend on the nature, location and timing of any crisis.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?