Sadly for my party, Patreaus is a better option than any of the announced duds and I don't even know what he believes.
Sadly for my party, Patreaus is a better option than any of the announced duds and I don't even know what he believes.
I find it surprising that there are no undecideds.
But Petreaus would indeed be a good choice for the GOP. Too bad he isn't going to run.
The transition from soldier to politician isn't an easy one. One can learn much from military life for use in civilian life, but much that one learns has to be tested for relevance.
Dwight Eisenhower did not run against Harry Truman. He chose to wait until Truman was intensely unpopular and wasn't running. He chose to pick his political battle, running for the Presidency when it had an open seat -- which it will have in 2016 if Barack Obama is re-elected. Should Barack Obama be re-elected, any Democrat will be much weaker than he was in 2012 -- in 2016.
Since 1900, eight of thirteen incumbents running for re-election have been re-elected. 2016 offers better odds. As a military man, he might not be as much an ideologue as most of the GOP (or really, Democrats) is today. Not being an ideologue might be a virtue in 2016 if the Democrats are seen likely to hold both Houses of Congress. Split government has its virtues. He could get away with being the definitive moderate after moderates have been largely swept from the political scene.
Not being a partisan hack and not having overt ties to the special interests that now own the GOP could make him seem fresh -- and useful -- in American politics. American political life has been casting off moderates in recent years; that could change when Americans want something other than canned ideology and pervasive shrillness.
