Thread: Gen. David Petraeus

Given his military successes and ability to handle tough situations, should he be considered for President (in the future of course) and if he does what do you guys think he could offer this country?

Just a thought....your opinions?

Is he republican, Democrat or independent, the latter would be refreshing but doubt he would get in.

Originally Posted by Master

Is he republican, Democrat or independent, the latter would be refreshing but doubt he would get in.

He's "nonpolitical" which I think is quite refreshing...although to be a successful soldier statesman you've got to have a little political IQ to you

I think it is impossible to say until he know more about him. It seems that, in America at least, military leaders have a hard time when they try to run for President.

Originally Posted by CFH

I think it is impossible to say until he know more about him. It seems that, in America at least, military leaders have a hard time when they try to run for President.

Recently perhaps what with McCain, Dole, etc. But historically they've been gang busters! Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Truman, and so on and so forth.

I think Petraeus would be someone that could bring the country together.....bar the far left anti-War at all cost nutjobs.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by CFH

I think it is impossible to say until he know more about him. It seems that, in America at least, military leaders have a hard time when they try to run for President.

Recently perhaps what with McCain, Dole, etc. But historically they've been gang busters! Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Truman, and so on and so forth.

I think Petraeus would be someone that could bring the country together.....bar the far left anti-War at all cost nutjobs.

I was meaning recently, yeah (as in the last 100 years or so). Even so, out of those guys, only one was a general (I think) and he has just helped win the largest war in history. There doesn't seem to be a bias against those who have served, but it seems difficult for those in the highest levels of command to make the transition to public life.

I don't think my political leaning would allow me to support an ex-general in an election as most of them, to generalize, seem to be on the 'right' side of the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by CFH

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by CFH

I think it is impossible to say until he know more about him. It seems that, in America at least, military leaders have a hard time when they try to run for President.

Recently perhaps what with McCain, Dole, etc. But historically they've been gang busters! Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Truman, and so on and so forth.

I think Petraeus would be someone that could bring the country together.....bar the far left anti-War at all cost nutjobs.

I was meaning recently, yeah (as in the last 100 years or so). Even so, out of those guys, only one was a general and he has just helped win the largest war in history. There doesn't seem to be a bias against those who have served, but it seems difficult for those in the highest levels of command to make the transition to public life.

I don't think my political leaning would allow me to support an ex-general in an election as most of them, to generalize, seem to be on the 'right' side of the political spectrum.

Wesley Clark was a General and ran as a Democrat.

Grant was a General as well.

I think the "problem" these military guys have is that they are rigid in their beliefs....once upon a time that used to be an endearing quality, but now no one takes a hard stand on anything for fear of being hung out to dry politically....Obama couldn't survive a 'Bay of Pigs' massacre the way JFK did, there's 0 way he could do it with today's 24/7 news cycle.

I think Petraeus is a guy who just focuses his energy on getting the job done. Heard his biographer speak of him as taking advice from any and all levels of serviceman and he seems humble enough to where I would trust the country in his hands....unlike say an egomaniac like MacArthur or Patton

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by CFH

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by CFH

I think it is impossible to say until he know more about him. It seems that, in America at least, military leaders have a hard time when they try to run for President.

Recently perhaps what with McCain, Dole, etc. But historically they've been gang busters! Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Truman, and so on and so forth.

I think Petraeus would be someone that could bring the country together.....bar the far left anti-War at all cost nutjobs.

I was meaning recently, yeah (as in the last 100 years or so). Even so, out of those guys, only one was a general and he has just helped win the largest war in history. There doesn't seem to be a bias against those who have served, but it seems difficult for those in the highest levels of command to make the transition to public life.

I don't think my political leaning would allow me to support an ex-general in an election as most of them, to generalize, seem to be on the 'right' side of the political spectrum.

Wesley Clark was a General and ran as a Democrat.

Grant was a General as well.

I think the "problem" these military guys have is that they are rigid in their beliefs....once upon a time that used to be an endearing quality, but now no one takes a hard stand on anything for fear of being hung out to dry politically....Obama couldn't survive a 'Bay of Pigs' massacre the way JFK did, there's 0 way he could do it with today's 24/7 news cycle.

I think Petraeus is a guy who just focuses his energy on getting the job done. Heard his biographer speak of him as taking advice from any and all levels of serviceman and he seems humble enough to where I would trust the country in his hands....unlike say an egomaniac like MacArthur or Patton

JFK would get massacred in today's media, Bay of Pigs or no. To be honest, I have somewhat mixed views about him myself, but that is a topic for another time.

Wesley Clark was/is an interesting figure. It seemed to me that the Democrats just threw him into the race out of a bit of desperation. They knew they needed a military guy because of the political climate of the day (two wars, first election after 9/11, the prevailing jingoistic sentiment that the public seemed to largely embody etc.), threw him into the race very late, and he never seemed to really have a chance. I think he *could* have gained some support had he started early, but he got into the race so late that he just came across as quite shallow to me.