Blogs and Stories
Petraeus for President?
Elsa / Getty Images
The GOP, torn apart by extremists, needs a hero to step up and lead the party. Peter Beinart thinks General David Petraeus is a lot like Ike.
Remember last winter, when liberals were complaining that Barack Obama had kept Bush family consigliere Robert Gates as his secretary of Defense and named a John McCain buddy, General James Jones, as his National Security Adviser? They're not complaining now. Today, Gates and Jones are MoveOn's best friends, because they provide the political cover that Obama needs to reject General Stanley McChrystal's call for more troops in Afghanistan. Imagine if Richard Danzig was Defense secretary and Susan Rice was NSC adviser, as many had expected. Obama would have never dared send them out to publicly slap down McChrystal, as both Gates and Jones have done. With liberal civilians in key posts, Obama’s administration would have appeared more dovish, which, ironically, would have made it harder for Obama to actually do the dovish thing.
But as shrewd as Obama has been about the politics of national security, his showdown with McChrystal still offers the GOP its best chance so far of getting up off the mat. It's worth remembering that the last time the Republican Party was in this bad a shape, in the early 1950s, two generals helped resuscitate it. The first was Douglas MacArthur, who in 1951 accused President Harry Truman of appeasement for scaling back America's objectives in Korea. The confrontation cost MacArthur his job, but it cost Truman his popularity. In the almost two years that Truman served as president after firing MacArthur, his approval rating never reached 40 percent.
It's worth remembering that the last time the Republican Party was in this bad a shape, in the early 1950s, two generals helped resuscitate it.
There’s another analogy, however, that should worry Democrats even more: Not between General MacArthur and General McChrystal, but between General Dwight Eisenhower and General David Petraeus. Pundits have mused about the Eisenhower-Petraeus comparison before, but the Afghanistan slugfest gives it new relevance. In the late Truman years, MacArthur, Joseph McCarthy, and the rest of the Republican right wing were a bit like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck today. They succeeded in bloodying the Democrats and scaring the country about overseas threats. But their overseas warmongering and domestic radicalism made them too extreme to ever win national office themselves.
Ike was different. He exploited the right’s hysteria, and yet sailed above it at the same time. He refused to condemn McCarthy, and implied that he too believed that Truman’s containment policies constituted appeasement, but he maintained his calm, soothing tone. As a war hero who stood apart from the partisan brawling around him, he retained a personal brand far stronger than either party’s.
As personalities, the syntax-mangling Ike and the self-consciously intellectual David Petraeus don't have much in common. But politically, they're in a parallel position. Today's GOP has a right-wing base that can damage Obama, but none of its favorites have a prayer of winning the White House. The reason is that just like the Republican right of the early 1950s, which kept insisting that the New Deal constituted socialism (or fascism), today’s conservative activists have not accommodated themselves to some basic shifts in public mood. Over the past couple of decades, the American people have grown more pro-environment, more culturally tolerant, and more suspicious of the unregulated free market, and yet the Republican Party has responded with a series of litmus tests for its presidential candidates that represent the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la, I can't hear you."
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
China's Upper Hand
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
The Dems' Smart Abortion Move
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
The Myth of the Wall's Fall
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
I agree with the assessment of what characteristics the GOP needs to be looking for in their next Presidential nominee, but I don't think that Gen. Patraeus is the obvious choice. And neither did your Christopher Buckley- http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-08/joe-scarborough-c an-save-the-gop/ I think Joe Scarborough is the man for 2012
Scarborough is a boring blowhard and Patreus doesn't hold a candle to Eisenhower. Both parties are bereft of leadership.
michaelslevinson.com
One of our primary criterea is: The Left must hate our candidate.
That rules out Scarborough and Patraeus.
The country has no stomache for a man in uniform transitioning to the White House, especially after 8 years of war. That ship sailed with Colin Powell, who would've kicked Gore's tush in 2000.
Any idea on his domestic agenda? Perhaps he's a Lyndon Larouche fanatic.
So typical of the Repugs to possibly choose a General as their political leader. It seems after every war, a general comes to the fore. I don't think they make the best civilian leaders, tho'. I can't believe there are no Repugs in this country that would be a good candidate for president. Whatever happened to the moderates? Mitt Romney? He seems to have deserted the party. Unless they take back their party from the rightwingers, they will not get back in power for some time.
LOL!! So a corrupt community organizer is more qualified than a decorated and educated General who is a proven leader to all of you Obama kool-aid drinkers??
You Dems/libs are by far the most stupid people walking the face of this earth, NO COMMON SENSE!!!!
"So typical of the Repugs to possibly choose a General as their political leader."
Dems don't have any to choose from.
too bad for idiots like you that us repugs would "probably choose" a General than a soft spine moderate as a candidate this time, huh? sometimes it's great being typical. who cares what you think about civilian leaders??? "can't believe there are no?" what a dummy. its the "rightwingers" that need to take the party back from the moderates, and the spineless.
dont forget little weasly clark! oh yeah, he couldn't make it through the primaries.
PLEASE RUN GENERAL BETRAYUS!!! PLEASE LOLOLOLOL
OBAMA 2012
yeah, general "betrayus", some idiots think you have no chance against an actual American who fights for your country, to get you all the free things you need! and remember obama has a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! that my, friend is how you win wars!
oh, yeah: lol, lol, lol...obama 2012. hilarious.
Different man, and ENTIRELY DIFFERENT circumstances.
I think the general has served the nation with honor and I do not want to see him run for office with either party because neither party deserves him! All either party concerns themselves with is "winning"! No concern whatsoever as to what the People want or what the government should be doing! The party platforms are almost identical: A progressive, socialist agenda headed there at different speeds! I, for one, believe in the Constitution and have discovered that most Americans believe in it also! BOTH parties have paid "lip-service" to our founding documents for almost 100 years, so I pray for the demise of both parties ~ You suck!
Yes, I am one of the "angry mob", the "Tea Partiers", "Astroturf", and "Town Hallers"; I am one of those that seems to scare the crap out of both parties because we discovered YOU are the "minority" in this nation! Be scared, be very scared! Our founding fathers, through their sacrifices of their blood and fortunes to free us from England's King, gave us three choices in our arsenal for change: 1~The Soap Box, 2~The Ballot Box, and 3~The Ammo Box! Because of their sacrifices, we will never have to use the third option! We are using the Soap Box today and the Ballot Box next year and we will change the face of Congress; we're going to fire most of them because they've been doing a lousy job representing the People, so you might want to say good-bye to you favorite tax an spend idiot in Congress! Because we're sending the liars from both parties home! You can put up with them; we're ready to put them in prison!
Who will win in 2012? I don't know right now; it could be Sarah Palin! Beauty and Brains; a great combination and she has more intestinal fortitude that anybody blogging on this page, including me! It could be Michelle Bachman. Another Beauty and Brains combination with guts! It could be somebody else with the right principles and the love for Liberty and Freedom the progressives do not have! Mitt Romney? Unless the Republicans are totally dumb (and they could be), they will not run with the man who proved how stupid he was to sign into law Universal Healthcare for the state of Massachusetts! Mike Huckabee? Maybe, he still has to prove himself! Hillary Clinton? Beauty and the Beast all rolled into one! I doubt it; she went to work for this Marxist who lied to the American People to get into office after telling everybody during the primary that Obama was not qualified and too naﶥ to serve as President! No, she's shown herself to be another power-hungry progressive!
One thing I am certain of is it won't be Barack Hussein Obama! Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing it's idiot!
You're being silly, right?
AHA, THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, MR WONDERFUL A 67 YR OLD MEDICARE RECIPIENT, CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN THE POLITICAL TURMOIL OF THE " TEABAGGERS" AND THE LOUD MOUTH TOWN HALL "SCREAMERS" HAS LAID OUTTHE 2012 POLITICAL SCENE FOR YOU NON-BELIEVERS.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THE PRIMARY DEBATE BETWEEN CARIBOU BARBIE AND MS BACHMAN OVERDRIVE, 2 EGO MANIACS TRYING TO PROVE BARNUM CORRECT SPOUTING THE GARBAGE MR WONDERFUL IS ENTHRALLED BY SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF PEOPLE, SENDING YOUR NEIGHBORS KIDS TO WAR AND MISTAKING MAKE UO FOR BRAINS AND BEAUTY.
BRING IT ON!
Folks, I'm a little biased of course, but he's phenominal. I attached a link to his biography below so you can read his accomplishments. Beyong his obvious LEADERSHIP skills, he's Ivy League educated and has certianly lived in Europe and the Middle East much more than the current CiC. He doesn't come with the baggage of a main stream politician either. I know many on this post would be strongly opposed to a military guy in there....but I think the country needs it. He's bright and educated well beyond just the military. Please read....
http://www.centcom.mil/en/about-centcom/leadership/
Oh great. A junte government. Repugs LOVE the military.
See what I mean? Humor loves a military man. So Republican.
If you are indeed a "newswoman" then you have that Military Man and generations of them to thank for being able to speak freely.
Why are liberals so ignorant?
Republican and proud of it.
winebabe: That would be generations of liberals and conservatives who actually served. Reminds me: where was Dick Cheney when I was in Vietnam?
Ivy-educated and European, with ties to the Middle East would be problematic. Sound very elitist. How do I know he's not a Manchurian Candidate, who's lived his life secretly plotting to assimilate the U.S. with the Socialists and the Muslims?
H-I-U,
Great story but as this president proved, accomplishments are not a prerequisite for the job. Experience is not a prerequisite for the job. Certainly leadership skills are not a prerequisite for the job.
Can the good General read a teleprompter? Can the good General get the main stream media to kiss his red white and blue ass? Can the good General get 95% of his race to vote for him just because of the color of is skin? These seem to be the only qualifications required to be come president. But when you really compare the two the good general is more than qualified the guy sitting in the white house as we speak.... Much more
The Republican party has been in power most of them time during the Second Gilded Age of the last 30 years. We are in a reform cycle now which will last at least a decade if history is any guide, which means Obama will win again in 2012. As a historian, I am willing to bet anyone that this is exactly what is going to happen, and that there will not be another conservative president until sometime in the 2020s.
So Mr. Beinart, tell me why you think the Republican party deserves another chance to be in power again any time soon? Tell me why I should want to see the monster revive at all? They have had a big part in landing us in this depression, but have absolutely refused to take any responsibility for it or do anything constructive to help us in this crisis. Nothing at all.
Indeed, Mr. Beinart, they have the same ideas as Reagan and Coolidge--the same ideas they've had for 100 years or more--and seem to think people can't wait to give them power to do the same old things again. That's not going to happen any time soon.
PS Ike couldn't stand Douglas MacArthur, and one of teh reasons he ran was to block his old rival. It's not even clear that Ike was ever really a Republican at all before he actually ran for president, but he was always a supporter of FDR and the New Deal.
Your bias is tainting your argument. Oh yeah...I'll take that bet.
Hey, I want some of that bet, along with 60% of the Amrican people.
It was said about MacArthur that he rejected the offer of the GOP candidacy for the presidency, because he wouldn't "stoop to such a lowly position."
MacArthur was vain, arrogant and often made mistakes. But as usual, his successes blinded everyone to his enormous flaws.
Everyone except Harry Truman, who fired MacArthur and called him, " .... one dumb sonofabitch!"
this guy Peter B.H. ..American Idiots just got a new president.. cant wait until 2012
No, Xmen11, American idiots elected a disastrous president for TWO terms. We hope that never happens again.
Incorrect: We only elected Obama once.
Its Either War Mongers or Idiots.. Soon to be a failed State.. America
I'll take War Mongers(over idiot liberals) for $500 Alex.
Get real, the Republican party today is a pale shadow of the broad but conservative tent it used to be. All that remains now is a mix of extremists motivated by largely by an abiding hatred of anything or anyone 'different' to what they consider as absolute truth. Petraeus is a good talented general, if anything he could add benefit to the center of the Democratic party with whom he has far more in common than leaders of the GOP like Rush and Glen.
This guy is forgetting one very important fact, we are not living in the 1950's anymore. The U.S. is a completely different animal now. For example, in the 1950's whites made up about 88% of the population. Now, non-Hispanic whites make up 66% and are expected to fall to 46% by 2050. Compare this to the demographics of the Republican Party. Weak with support from Hispanics and Asians and very weak with blacks. Unless the Republican Party changes it will continue to getter weaker and weaker. I personally don't see the evangelical base doing that. My prediction is the party will divide in the next 30 years and a major 3rd party emerges made up of fiscal conservative/social liberal members. This 3rd party will definitely be joined by the more conservative Democrats. The mostly white, evangelical base of the current Republican Party will increasingly become marginalized and radical.
I worked with Gen. :Petraeus and his team at the US Embassy in Baghdad for a year during the surge. He is an able Washington general interested in themes more than details and management controls. To senior executives he is collegial, friendly and likable, but sticks to positions when evidence indicates that other solutions might be possible. His natural political skills are focused on meeting his military objectives. I'm not certain that these skills are transferable to the mundane details of political campaigning, or that he would even be interested in such work. As for his international experience, all of it has been within the institutional framework of the Department of Defense. He hasn't lived abroad in the normal sense, but as an American officer on bases doing DoD missions. That's not the same as being an American abroad in the normal social and business environment that lends itself to a broad understanding of a country or region. But the same could be said of anyone in the State Department, CIA, etc. He can be more influential on the speaking circuit, writing books, leading a think tank, etc.
For those that don't know, war is like porn to Mr. Beinart. He's the resident war-mongering "liberal". He's been consistently wrong about everything Iraq and Afghanistan for years, but it hasn't stopped him from making a career helping Republicans and being the recipient of wingnut welfare here and on my TV.
Obama, who has never held a real job, run anything, or had any military or international experience, is gradually being exposed as the callow neophyte he is. Petraeus' curriculum vitae is impressive, and it is very doubtful that he will be found apologizing for his country to foreign dictators. He would be a great choice.
You do realize that Obama has held many jobs, from attorney to college professor, and has lead several organizations, right? Didn't Glenn Beck tell you that. Moron.
Don't you people lining up to suck off Petraeus realize that he is despised within the military? Betrayus is a nickname given to him by his own men. They are just waiting for him to run for something so they can destroy him. That's why he'll never run for anything.
Don't forget community organizer.
Proof of your idiotic statement about the military nickname? You lie!
Very brief time as a new attorney before leaving the firm.
ADJUNCT professor, a marginal job.
Community organizer.
State Senator.
As I said, he never had a real job.
Your Betrayus revelation is pure fiction.
Amen to your post.
Petraeus' only experience is the military. The military is inefficient in the extreme, as it is after all a government job.
A military paid for by the people. How very socialist, that's the last thing we need is another socialist.......
Just what we need....Another banana boat dictator wanna-be..Military generals for the most part make the WORST PRESIDENTS EVER! All the rethuglican cry babies are looking for is a daddy....somebody that will take away that scary black man and bring back Jack Benny...
Stupid.....just stupid....
If I'm not mistaken I believe that the crybabies you refer to are all inhabitants of the thin-skinned White House. Talk about crybabies! No class or common sense what-so-ever!!!
And there it is...the racial comment. Racism is now the default retreat position for Democrats. Your "president" is failing on every front as his poll numbers tank. Republicans now have the lead in 8 out of 9 issues important to Americans. the Dems are about to be spanked in NJ and VA governor races, and the GOP will probably make big gains in 2010. You people are desperate, so the only thing left is the completely baseless racist charge. Truly pathetic. And ironic, considering your own party's abysmal history with racism. It was your people Winski who pushed for Jim Crow, the Black Codes, and Segragation. It was Democrats like you who opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Every founding member of the Ku Klux Klan was Democrat, as was every single villain from the Civil Rights era. Yep, Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, etc., etc. They were all Democrats just like you Winski. Now aren't you embarrassed. Sill Klucker.
"It was Democrats like you" To be fair Democrats from today and from the early 1900's are nothing alike. Sure the Democratic party once had a Southern conservative wing, but that shrank after President Lyndon B. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where did they all go?
One guess
I don't doubt that General Petraeus is a highly intelligent and accomplished man. So was Ike, when he was recruited by the GOP to run for president in 1952.
Ike soon found out that Republican politics was a quagmire, and he had to sit still while the alcoholic lunatic, Joe McCarthy ran wild.
Ike finally found his voice at the end of his last administration when he warned us about the "Military-Industrial Complex."
By that time, the Republicans had no further use for him, and the Dems ignored him.
The result? We have wasted trillions of $$$ and squandered millions of lives (mostly foreign innocents), in feeding the maw of this MIC monster that our congresses have created.
If Petraeus is smart, he'll stay the hell out of politics.
Has Gen. Petraeus indicated that he's interested in running for president or, for that matter, any public office? If so shouldn't he resign from his key military position? Partisan politics already prevent clear thinking on important issues like health care, education and the environment. The last thing we need is a military commander worried about how his/her battle field decisions might affect the next election.
Nice try, but as Bubba used to say, that dog won't hunt. The crucial difference is that Ike was perceived as the hero of D-Day and was in charge of the drive that broke the Wehrmacht in the West- all very very big deals. Consequently he had broad appeal across the board. Petraeus is a star of significantly lesser magnitude.
Why would Petraeus ruin his reputation and be associated with freaks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Beck? He is too smart to be a Republican. The Republicans should get Joe the Plumber to run. He would certainly win the nomination.
Well don't forget that Bush beat your ilk ... twice. Too bad you're not smart enough to realize just how clueless you are.
Yes, Plumber/Palin would be a knockout ticket! The main plus for Petraeus would be that we could finally drop the mask: America is a nation at perpetual war with someone, somewhere, all the time. A general as president would be a neocon's dream, confirming just how dangerous the world is to each and every one of us.
"The GOP, torn apart by extremists..."
HUH??? What are you talking about?
--Always check your premises, especially the ones provided for you by the media or the government--
More far left analysis of something they know nothing about... conservatives or independents for that matter.
Nobody has a clue what Petraeus's ideology is except sorta on National Security. Unlike people on the far left or the far right, you can't predict where most people stand on every issue just based on knowing where they stand on one.
ThinkAgain - Between you and this statement by periscope 'If Petraeus is smart, he'll stay the hell out of politics' I think you've both summed it up. We know very little about this man in terms of what he would want to do as POTUS, and I suspect it's because he is fairly smart that we don't.
Gerarddm also makes a good point showing the significance difference in scale of the star quality of Eisenhower versus the star quality of Petraeus, who is a star of significantly lesser magnitude. And whatever star power Petraeus had, why he would want to waste it with the currently crumpled up wreck that is the Republican Party is beyond me.
Far better to start up a 3rd party, one of fiscal conservatives\social liberals as glenndale suggested, plus the social neutrals and the libertarians.
The parallels you're attempting to draw seem to forced. I don't think they add up, and I don't think that nominating a moderate for the GOP ticket (which is after all your real point) is going to get us anywhere.
What we need is someone who understands the principles in which he/she believes, and can articulate them in a way that moderates and independents can understand and support.
There's a difference in leading parties and leading people. We need conservative leaders who can communicate.
I'd love to see a strong candidate challenge in Obama in 2012. I don't give a damn about the Repubs or the Dems, every presidential election should be a tough choice between quality candidates.
If he gets the nomination I hope he can rise above the negative, attacking politics of distraction that have defined Republican campaigns in the past 20 years.
The worst that could happen to the Republican Party is to win the presidency before the Afghan debacle has run its course. As a professional soldier I see Afghanistan as a lose, lose situation. Pointman
Soros and his buddies are presently looking behind the scenes for an Independent candidate they can put their money behind. No, not because they want to defeat 0bama, they know the only way he is going to win is the way Clinton one by splitting the opposition vote because he is losing the independents big time. He knows that moronic liberals and blacks will vote for a ham sandwich as long as it's black and has a "D" after his name. thats around 42% he needs to find a Perot type to schiphon off 12% -15% to win.
And the rethugs call Obama a Nazi? Petraeus would be the ultimate in totalitarian gov't. What's next for the GOP, gas chambers for the poor?
djanimaequeen - "Petraeus would be the ultimate in totalitarian gov't."
You are saying this based on what? Do you have any sources where Petraeus is talking about anything other than military matters?
As if you pay attention to facts. The military and the executive branch should NEVER intermingle. If you need facts, look at Nazi Germany, Ike and neo-McCarthyism, North Korea. Hello! We should strive to never ever have a military government. I am using my knowledge of history as the basis of my opinion. I don't need Faux Noise sound bites to form an opinion because unlike Faux Noise viewers, I am literate and educated.
djanimaequeen - You didn't answer either question. What is it that you know about Petraeus? Do you have any sources?
As for the rest of your diatribe:
"I don't need Faux Noise sound bites to form an opinion because unlike Faux Noise viewers, I am literate and educated." - I don't watch Fox News either (except when Juan Williams or Mora Liason are doing battle with the forces of fear on Special Report), nor do I watch any news program other than the Daily Show, if that can be called a news program. I get most of my news here, from NPR and The Economist. And before you suggest it, I don't listen to talk radio, except of course the absolutely wonderful WFAE here in Charlotte.
"The military and the executive branch should NEVER intermingle." - So George Washington should have never served as president? Nor Abraham Lincoln? Jimmy Carter was in the US Navy at some point in his life. I think John Kerry was too. And John F Kennedy. And Lyndon Johnson. There's good number of them. As POTUS they all served as members of the civilian side of the government, even though they were of course Commander-in-Chief, meaning they exercised control over the military, as civilians.
"If you need facts, look at Nazi Germany, Ike and neo-McCarthyism, North Korea." - You're equating the Eisenhower administration to that of the Kim family ruling North Korea? Likewise Nazi Germany? I think you exaggerate and by a significant factor. In fact, it's almost Beckishly theatric. If there's ever a military coup in the United States, it will be more like Argentina than anything else.
"We should strive to never ever have a military government." - How is it that you equate the possibility of Petraeus running as a GOP candidate, with some remote possibility of being voted into office as POTUS as leading us to military government? Do you imagine that once Petraeus is in office, should it come to that, he'd say to himself, "Gee, I'll throw away all the legitimacy of my administration and declare myself the military ruler of the United States, alienate my most important allies here and overseas, trigger a civil war that will make it impossible to rule, further corrupt a more-or-less functional government, and screw up the military itself by involving it in politics."
"I am using my knowledge of history as the basis of my opinion." - It goes without saying, but I am glad you said it.
"As if you pay attention to facts." - Just what are the facts about Petraeus?
djanimaequeen - Correction. Kerry wasn't POTUS. Wishful thinking on my part.
What part of I AM STATING MY OPINION do you not understand? Military Executive branch = Tolalitarian. Get a life!!
And yes I am equating the mass hyteria of McCarthyism to North Korea.
I don't see him accepting, or winning if he does. Americans are done with war. BTW, where's his birth certificate?
Lol! Good one!
Has it ever been established for sure that Petraeus is even a Republican? The guy might be a closet liberal for all we know. Even if he leans conservative on most issues, if the guy is pro-choice he doesn't have a chance with the GOP base.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.