-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
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.
View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/05/petraeuss-presidential-prospec
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 5.5.10 @ 2:48PM
Petraeus has more control of himself than Palin-- the general is not oversensitive concerning his children. If he had a developmentally disabled child he wouldn't be upset that Rahm used the dreaded 'R' word.
Grzmlyk| 5.5.10 @ 3:54PM
Unless, of course, Petraeus were a known Democrat and Rahm a Republican.
In that event, it would be "whah, whah, whah!!!," "mean-spirited" this and "hate speech" that.
In such an upside-down world, Rahm would be ridden out of town on a rail in a New York Times minute - a rail carried with extreme prejudice by the corrupt mainstream media, the Washington criminal class, and rank-and-file Dems - the felons and the credulous true believers alike.
Alan Brooks| 5.5.10 @ 3:57PM
For someone who has obtained such wealth as Palin has (meaning Trig will never want for medical care) to feel so angrily insecure indicates she thinks it is a complete zero sum game and her child Trig is somehow threatened by government health care "Death Committees" who will supposedly tax her family to the extent that Trig will suffer; even though she has reached a position, including not only wealth but also connections, where Trig will never lack for any health care, ever.
JP| 5.5.10 @ 4:14PM
Alan,
Now that Sarah Palin is worth over $10 million I seriously doubt that she will ever be in a position to have to worry about government sponsored health care. She could always seek doctors in the Caymens (or wherever they will set up shop). If some Medicare bureaucrat ever announces that her son's life isn't worth the cost of such and such, she can simply go elsewhere.
So, in a sense Edwards proclaimation about the 2 Americas is coming ever closer to fruition.
BTW, I am no Palin fan. I just thought I would point out the obvious.
Greg| 5.6.10 @ 1:15PM
JP, if you mean that Obamacare will push us to even further discrepancies in quality of and access to healthcare, you are correct. There has always been 2 Americas. But for awhile there, a large middle class enjoyed a pretty high level of healthcare services. As costs for these private plans increase due to the ramped up government subsidized pool, more and more of these folks will drop into that pool and only the upper classes will be able to retain plans that provide timely and full access to the high end services that millions enjoy today. By the time the masses realize that, it will have already become entrenched. There are 2 Canadas too.
Grzmlyk| 5.5.10 @ 4:32PM
You have enough oxygen where you are?
Alan Brooks| 5.5.10 @ 7:15PM
"Now that Sarah Palin is worth over $10 million I seriously doubt that she will ever be in a position to have to worry about government sponsored health care."
Then why is such a strong woman so sensitive about her son when there is no reason for her to worry about the cost of his care?
Alan Brooks| 5.5.10 @ 7:32PM
Remember, she reacted to Rahm's 'R' word anger at LEFTWING extremists. She ought to have known better than to display her sensitivity in public.
ggoblue| 5.6.10 @ 1:52AM
sarah palin is worried about death committees and how they will treat YOU, alan brooks.
Siegfried X| 5.5.10 @ 3:15PM
Correct, we don't know what Petraeus believes about anything which is why the original column didn't make much sense. How can we speculate about a Petraeus candidacy when we know nothing about his politics?
It seems that the author is setting up a double standard, writing the original column without the information, then turning around and deflecting all criticism about the General by saying we don't know his politics. It is ok to write a political column about Petraeus but not to criticize it.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.5.10 @ 3:29PM
Mr. Klein,
Your column was well received by me at any rate, and thought provoking as well. Witness the comments the other day.
I appreciated the biographical sketch as well. Fun column.
Rob| 5.5.10 @ 5:22PM
I enjoyed reading the column as well. Quite a remarkable man.
If a Petraeus presidential candidacy in 2012 is unlikely, what about a vice presidential candidacy? If a winning candidate had a more clear sense of Petraeus' political views, that might be more conceivable. Perhaps a Governor might find his work of interest, so that the team could present a unified picture of executive accomplishment, in contrast to the work of the two former Senators on the current team.
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 3:40PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Petraeus's Presidential links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim Hlavac | 5.5.10 @ 4:02PM
Yep, a guy of whom we know nothing much more than that he's a general -- he's the One, right? A guy who shows no inclination to even run. Why, we might even be surprised, say, if he ran as a "strong defense" Democrat, no? Always good to tout the generals as future presidents -- no background, no public policy positions, but strong on defense. On the other hand, the guy could be just as liberal as Obama -- with a sharper uniform. Then what?
But so long as it's anybody but Palin -- well, OK, then, right?
Meanwhile, Ol' Sarah -- known and unknown better than any politician in decades -- investigated, castigated, masticated -- not good enough for the big time, it's said -- Despite being in the big time so hugely that she's the only person in this country who can get a cheering crowd of a few thousand together at a moment's notice. And the only Republican who would get my money, time and vote (the others will have to just do without these from me.)
Nope, no point in having someone That popular -- why, she might be polarizing! The Dems might despise her more than they do now! Why, they might even have fits and keel over kafluey!
Well, I suppose if we knew a thing about the good general, other than sharp creases (where have I heard that before?) he'd make a good VP, you know, to give foreign policy experience (like Biden) and let him get used to the national stage.
One could go on -- but if Palin scares mainstream Republicans -- good for that too -- time to then just put both parties out of their misery, so we'll have no more of this crud called bipartisanship from the twin creators of national disaster looming. Better to have three or four parties, like when Lincoln ran, and we'd all do better.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.5.10 @ 6:23PM
Jim H.
I'm with you partner.
First, if 2012 elections are allowed...SARAH CAN WIN!
Second, I think I would enjoy a Sarah Presidency. She is smart enough to learn stuff and surround herself with sharp people instead of communists, (pardon the shorthand).
Red Phillips | 5.5.10 @ 4:45PM
Frum and his minions are generally moderates on social and economic issues and hawkish on foreign policy. So if one of the Frumbots is expressing skepticism about a Petraeus run, then I suspect they imagine him to not be with them in one or more of those areas. Could it be that they think he might be a Powell style realist on foreign policy?
R. Dittmar| 5.5.10 @ 7:08PM
If the GOP wants to hasten its interment in the political bone yard next to the Whigs, then by all means let’s pick a guy that reminds everyone of Bush’s disastrously unpopular foreign policy failures. Maybe Karl Rove will still be available to add the push for amnesty to the party platform as well. Spengler has a great article about what Petraeus has wrought over at the Asia Times today:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M.....4Ak01.html
Tim*| 5.6.10 @ 8:46AM
Same Old NeoCon Israel Firster Agenda by RINO-CINO Frum .
The difference is that General Petraeus is a Real American Warrior Patriot and Canadian Frum isn't and thinks Israel's National Interests trump United States National Interests.
Bob K.| 5.6.10 @ 9:16AM
I'm a (Big C) Conservative, a veteran and a real patriot too; but I wonder, along with "Spengler," whose real name is David Goldman , and who is a conservative American, how long we can continue to support these politicians and generals who have learned nothing from history! This despite their vaunted advanced degrees!
We, like Russia before us, are fighting in Afghanistan with state of the art weaponry against people who make replicas of AK-47's in cottage industries and road side bombs in caves, and quite frankly, we are getting our butts whipped!
I don't know what the answer is, and I'm convinced that Petraeus doesn't know either. What I do know, is that he doesn't act like George Washington or Cincinnatus either.
Derek Leaberry| 5.6.10 @ 9:18AM
General Petraeus won't even defend the military from the forces of the cultural Left. He has acceded to the forces of feminism and homosexuality, to the detriment of the armed forces. Petraeus is either a man of the Left himself or a moral coward. He should not get the support of conservatives.
Tim*| 5.6.10 @ 11:16AM
Good points ! On those issues , Petraeus is a Real American ( little "W " ) warrior Patriot.
Margie| 5.6.10 @ 11:54AM
If Petraeus agrees with Hilary Clinton's view on Israel and foreign policy, he isn't the one we want as President. Him along with ANYONE who shares that view.
I said IF he does.
Tim*| 5.6.10 @ 12:00PM
Sarah Palin Endorses Rand Paul .
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 9:51PM
Cricket: World Twenty20: Pretenders and the contenders | Business Suit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 5.6.10 @ 10:24PM
To understand the Libertarian, anti-Israel, non-interventionist, Leftist Paul-bot mind, go here:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/0.....ur-of-the-“ron-paul-revolutionary”-mind-2/
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 3:29PM
Driving Prospects to Your Website Fundamentals Trailer.wmv | PPC Aggregators links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 4:59AM
Twitter Traffic Tornado. | Traffic Turnover links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 12:16PM
Website Traffic Secrets Uncovered. | Traffic Turnover links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 11:55AM
Reach Millions With Your Sales Message! | Damaged Vehicles For Sale links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: