General James Mattis 2016

[CLARENCE 2015!]

General Mattis is a living legend of the Marine Corps.... he has a helluva record any officer would be proud of, commands the respect of the nations' veterans. Since his retirement last year- he has been active on the lecture circuit and on news shows, and was on Candy Crowley's show this past week.

I hear his name thrown around my Legion post quite a bit.... but I believe there is an opening and he would be a formidable candidate

I support Hillary, but he would make that  a tough decision.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOc38ZwEO8s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis

[Maxwell]

Certainly preferable to David "Perception is reality" Patreaus

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The Wiki article doesn't even list his party...

[Meursault]

No thanks.

If we absolutely have to have a soldier-President ever again, I would prefer they not come out of the Marine Corps. An Admiral would be tolerable.

[BaconBacon96]

No.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Perhaps if any of you listened to his lectures, you'd see the man is a preeminent expert on the Middle East. He was the commander of CENTCOM- the command of the US military responsible for the Middle East

He considers himself a "soldier-scholar"

[Orser67]

Yeah, I personally don't think I would vote for someone who hasn't been in Congress or served as Governor (I might also consider Cabinet officials). There's just too much risk that the skills and knowledge won't translate. And there's also the practical hurdle of running a campaign for the first time.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I respect that

Definitely consider that an officer of Mattis's rank has to deal regularly with foreign leaders....a four-star officer is as much a diplomat as he is a commander. Requires a certain amount of polish. And the hours and efforts extended daily clearly match or exceed those of a presidential campaign

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I respect that

Definitely consider that an officer of Mattis's rank has to deal regularly with foreign leaders....a four-star officer is as much a diplomat as he is a commander. Requires a certain amount of polish. And the hours and efforts extended daily clearly match or exceed those of a presidential campaign

Well, I certainly admire his military, scholary and diplomatic record, but I'd like to know more about his positions on domestic policy before considering him as a candidate for President.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Oh, he's cabinet material, no doubt.  But, unless he's prepared to deal with the myriad of issues not related to foreign policy, he would frankly make a terrible candidate and an even worse president.

[bballrox4717]

Generals are always the type of candidate that looks great on paper but fall apart if they don't have the political experience on other subjects. We saw this with Wesley Clark; every Democrat thought he would be the perfect foil to Bush on Iraq, but he didn't know what the hell he was talking about when it came to domestic policy and couldn't formulate positions that the common voter could understand.

Even if he did show political chops, I doubt General Mattis could just waltz in and start winning primary votes when he's had no media buzz or shown any interest so far in the race so far. If Romney 2012 has proved anything, you can't just win a primary race based on grassroots support alone. You not only need friends in Congress or in the governor crops, but all the way down to state legislator and precinct leader support as well. Guys like Bush, Rubio, Christie, and Paul have been connecting with these people before they even began to think they had a shot at the presidency.

General Mattis doesn't have that. Most of the population doesn't know who he is, whilst Eisenhower, for comparison's sake, had near 100 percent voter visibility when he announced and the enthusiastic support of the previous nominee. In short, General Mattis just doesn't have the organization to pull off a serious run.

[Indy Texas]

I've never been a fan of the "soldier-statesman" concept. It kind of rubs against the democratic, liberal notion that the military is meant to serve and protect the civilian society rather than control the civilian society, as often happens in countries where heads of state emerge from the military.

Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower were exceptions. Did James Mattis command and manage multiple military units from varying countries and service branches in Europe and achieve strategic success against a genocidal reign of terror? No.

More likely than not, he would find it hard to adjust to not simply being able to bark orders down the chain of command and have them followed immediately and without question. He sure as hell would have a fun time dealing with Congress.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've never been a fan of the "soldier-statesman" concept. It kind of rubs against the democratic, liberal notion that the military is meant to serve and protect the civilian society rather than control the civilian society, as often happens in countries where heads of state emerge from the military.

Well, he's no longer in active service, so opposing him solely on the basis he is a retired General would be undemocratic as well.

[AltWorlder]

I think this is worth bumping, if for nothing else than some Jeb/Romney advisor John Noonan is clamoring for the good General to be the Brokered Candidate.

I find it to be both amusing, and also interesting that the high-profile military commanders of the last few years (Petraeus, McChrystal) have all been politically eliminated by Obama-related scandals and sackings so now Republicans (or at least one) are rallying around a pretty apolitical soldier.