[TieMeUp]

I've been pondering this for a while, and the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense.

I'm utterly convinced that David Petraeus will run on the GOP ticket in 2016, and it will basically be "man in uniform" taking the helm to set things right and return the US to its global pre-eminence.

He's been assiduous in the past three or four years to cultivate the media and right-wing think tanks. His military credentials, having pacified the Gauls.. ahem I mean, Iraqis, will stand him in very good stead in right-wing circles (and it does generally in Washington).

I suspect he will be towards the centre on social issues, but a fiscal and foreign policy hawk, and an enormous champion for the military industrial complex. He would command the respect of an enormous number of military veterans from the 2000s campaigns in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Like Caesar, he has assiduously courted military veterans and their sense of grievance (not directly as this would be highly inappropriate; instead Mrs Petraeus is an official in charge of veteran affairs and has been highly populist and critical both of government and big business). He has so many similarities with Julius Caesar it's not even funny.

I fear that fascism may come to America in this guise; things are already bad enough, and if a military/CIA man like Petraeus takes the reins on a platform of "strength/stability/consolidation", I fear it may be finito for the republic.

Thoughts?

[Aj12]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
I've been pondering this for a while, and the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense.

I'm utterly convinced that David Petraeus will run on the GOP ticket in 2016, and it will basically be "man in uniform" taking the helm to set things right and return the US to its global pre-eminence.

He's been assiduous in the past three or four years to cultivate the media and right-wing think tanks. His military credentials, having pacified the Gauls.. ahem I mean, Iraqis, will stand him in very good stead in right-wing circles (and it does generally in Washington).

I suspect he will be towards the centre on social issues, but a fiscal and foreign policy hawk, and an enormous champion for the military industrial complex. He would command the respect of an enormous number of military veterans from the 2000s campaigns in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Like Caesar, he has assiduously courted military veterans and their sense of grievance (not directly as this would be highly inappropriate; instead Mrs Petraeus is an official in charge of veteran affairs and has been highly populist and critical both of government and big business). He has so many similarities with Julius Caesar it's not even funny.

I fear that fascism may come to America in this guise; things are already bad enough, and if a military/CIA man like Petraeus takes the reins on a platform of "strength/stability/consolidation", I fear it may be finito for the republic.

Thoughts?

I think its far too early to speculate on thw 2016 election. Even if Petraues does run its likely there will be other good candidates running too. Quite a few Republicans refused to waste their time against Obama because they knew they were unlikely to win and so will do a run in 2016 if Obama is re-elected

[Super Cicero]

Nah, he won't run imo.

Generals are generally reluctant to run for president. Civil War general Sherman famously said: "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." In fact, Petraeus has quoted Sherman when asked if he will run for presdient.

Eisenhower was very reluctant to run, and it took a lot of persuasion to get him to - and Ike was the most popular man in America in the early 1950s. Eisenhower was the hero of WW2 who liberated Europe from the Nazis. Petraeus, while an excellent commander, has as his greatest achievement the surge in Iraq - which while it pretty much brought an end to the Iraq conflict, was part of an unpopular, and in many Americans' eyes, pointless war. There will be no mass "draft Petraeus" movement.

The 2016 GOP nominee, presuming Romney loses in 2012, will in my opinion, most likely be either Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

Although just imagine a Petraeus-Rubio ticket. I think that would be pretty much unbeatable - unless the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
Nah, he won't run imo.

Generals are generally reluctant to run for president. Civil War general Sherman famously said: "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."

Not as reluctant as you might think, there have been quite a few generals in the White House. Washington, Jackson, Grant, Macarthur wanted to have a crack, and of course Ike.

Eisenhower was very reluctant to run, and it took a lot of persuasion to get him to - and Ike was the most popular man in America in the early 1950s. Eisenhower was the hero of WW2 who liberated Europe from the Nazis.

Well, kind of. He was actually very keen to run, but he didn't want to be seen to be trying; he wanted to be drafted and Nixon did a lot of the behind the scenes dirty work to make that happen. Conrad Black biography of Nixon is reasonably illuminating about the machinations and legwork that Nixon had to do to nobble Earl Warren and deliver the Californian delegation, *before* Ike was even officially in the running.

Petraeus, while an excellent commander, has as his greatest achievement the surge in Iraq - which while it pretty much brought an end to the Iraq conflict, was part of an unpopular, and in many Americans' eyes, a pointless war.

He polls very well, and I can't recall a CIA director with as high a public profile. I can't recall Tenet making speeches to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. He's very media friendly, and there are already some soft-money PACs, shell organisations admittedly, that are ready to go.

I predict that you will probably have three contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination (leaving out all the no-hopers); Petraeus, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Super Cicero)

There will be no mass "draft Petraeus" movement

We definitely agree there, but I'm quite sure he will run and he will be successful.

The 2016 GOP nominee, presuming Romney loses in 2012, will in my opinion, most likely be either Marco Rubio or Chris Christie.

Rubio is certainly a possible, and he'd have very good prospects.

Although just imagine a Petraeus-Rubio ticket.

That's what I thought as well, Rubio as his vice; it would be formidable.

I think that would be pretty much unbeatable - unless the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton.

That's certainly an interesting proposition, but I've come to the conclusion that Clinton is serious about not being interested in running again. She's a lot older than she was, and I'm not sure that after 8 years of Democratic Party rule she would feel that her prospects were that good.

But all very interesting. My prediction is that President Obama will almost certainly win in November, simply due to the advantages of incumbency, the fact that a proportion of the GOP will probably write-in Ron Paul (not huge numbers, but even 5% of registered Republicans doing so could be fatal to their campaign), and Romney's own serious issues with running away from his past as the Gov of Mass and as a Mormon bishop, and on his time as the CEO of Bain.

I think that at this time Americans are more receptive than ever before to a populist message about the 0.0001%. I think the GOP made a mistake putting up yet another plutocratic Republican princeling in the mould of Bush.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
That's certainly an interesting proposition, but I've come to the conclusion that Clinton is serious about not being interested in running again. She's a lot older than she was, and I'm not sure that after 8 years of Democratic Party rule she would feel that her prospects were that good.

Yeah, I think its most likely she won't run, but as I said, Hillary running would probably be the Democrats best chance of getting a 3rd term. Although Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montanna, is seen by many on the internet as also being a great potential 2016 candidate for the Democrats. I can see his appeal - he is a very likeable character, has the kind of 'folksy' image that would appeal to Republicans, and the guy is so badass that he vetoes legislation with a branding iron!
If I was an American I would be a moderate Republican, but I would seriously consider voting for Schweitzer if he was the Democrat nominee. Though if the GOP nominee was Petraeus as you're suggesting, then I really don't know who I'd support!

(Original post by TieMeUp)
But all very interesting. My prediction is that President Obama will almost certainly win in November, simply due to the advantages of incumbency, the fact that a proportion of the GOP will probably write-in Ron Paul (not huge numbers, but even 5% of registered Republicans doing so could be fatal to their campaign), and Romney's own serious issues with running away from his past as the Gov of Mass and as a Mormon bishop, and on his time as the CEO of Bain.

That does seem most likely at the moment, but there is a significant possibility that the American economy could go into a downturn between now and November. Imagine if Greece leaves the eurozone, which causes an economic crisis in the eurozone, which then impacts on the US? Romney could win.

(Original post by TieMeUp)
I think the GOP made a mistake putting up yet another plutocratic Republican princeling in the mould of Bush.

But who else were they going to pick? Santorum? Gingrich? Perry? Before you say Ron Paul, he had no real chance. I acknowledge the fact that he is responsible for creating a libertarian movement within the GOP which is likely to continue to grow, and that eventually (I'm thinking like 2024) we could see a libertarian like Rand Paul winning the GOP nomination. However, Ron Paul's views on foreign policy inevitably meant that, due to the current state of the Republican party, he wasn't going to win the nomination. John Huntsman would have been a very good candidate in the general election, but he was seen as too liberal to get through the GOP primary. So, Romney was the only OK option who had any chance of getting through the primary.

[Teofilo]

(Original post by Aj12)
Even if Petraues does run its likely there will be other good candidates running too.

On all known evidence, he would be very vulnerable to a radical running an insurgent campaign.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
But who else were they going to pick? Santorum? Gingrich? Perry? Before you say Ron Paul, he had no real chance. I acknowledge the fact that he is responsible for creating a libertarian movement within the GOP which is likely to continue to grow, and that eventually (I'm thinking like 2024) we could see a libertarian like Rand Paul winning the GOP nomination. However, Ron Paul's views on foreign policy inevitably meant that, due to the current state of the Republican party, he wasn't going to win the nomination.

Of course you're absolutely right, but I think this speaks to the lack of talent in the Republican party.

With re to Ron Paul, I am hugely sympathetic and I've been following him since March 2007, but I know he's never had a realistic chance of clinching the nomination.

I do think that for the Paulite movement, the nomination process is less about obtaining the nomination so much as these presidential runs are the lifeblood of the movement in terms of firing up their supporters, raising cash, bringing in new converts and crucially in organisational terms. The Paulites have taken control of several state GOPs (Iowa, Alaska, Maine I think), and there's a good possibility of a speaking slot at the convention for Paul.

Because it's as much about ideas as a particular individual, where ad-hoc organisations are created and disbanded around particular campaigns, the Paulites create and maintain a campaign/political infrastructure that they keep after the campaign, and are very effectively creating a libertarian political machine within the GOP.