Skip to comments.Patraeus/Palin 2012
Posted on 10/28/2009 6:09:22 AM PDT by nikos1121
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, Obamas 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.
Theres 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 rights hysteria, and yet sailed above it at the same time. He refused to condemn McCarthy, and implied that he too believed that Trumans 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 partys.
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), todays 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."
But this can't continue forever. After another presidential election loss or two, powerful forces within the GOP will begin looking for a candidate who doesn't have to kowtow to the party's activist base. They'll need someone with enough personal appeal to avoid the culture war food-fights that obsess the Republican base, someone who exudes moral traditionalism and fiscal prudence without appearing fanatical or intolerant. Such obfuscation wont satisfy the GOPs hard-right core, of course, but John McCainanother soldier-turned-polhas already shown that the rights stranglehold on the nominating process can be broken. Like McCain in 2008, Petraeus could largely skip the Iowa caucuses, which evangelicals dominate, and instead focus on New Hampshire, where independents can vote. In both 2000 and 2008, it was New Hampshire that boosted McCain, and New Hampshire, as it turns out, is the closest thing Petraeus has to a home state. From there it would be on to South Carolina, where military pedigrees go a long way.
Mark McKinnon on Petraeus Chances All this is wildly speculative, of course. But there's a political logic to it: Parties that have grown narrow and extreme tend to spiral downward until they nominate someone who is not beholden to their narrow, extreme base. That person has to be so popular that he or she can defy the normal rules about how candidates get nominated. Right now, David Petraeus is the only Republican who fits the bill. In the weeks ahead, McChrystal may become a conservative folk hero for opposing Obama on Afghanistan. But for Democrats looking toward 2012 and 2016, its Petraeus who represents the real threat.
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.
Okay, I admit...I added Sarah to the ticket...Nikos1121
Reverse it then we’ll talk.
Reverse it and then we’ll talk.
The GOP, torn apart by it’s inability to act differently than Democrats, . . .
OK...I’d like to see Sarah support the guy who is running for Governor against Corzine. Chris Christy. He’s neck and neck. If the independent candidate gets much of a turn out, Christy will lose.
Ike wasn’t a great president.
Yes, Sarah's done playing second fiddle.
I don't think it's really in her nature to be second and the way McCain and his team treated her, she's not going there again.
or you will wind up with a conservative Hawk...and someone who is moderate(or...gasp...liberal) on constitutional issues like the 1st,2nd and 10th amendments...
Palin has to be on the front of the ticket, period.
Beinart writes: “Parties that have grown narrow and extreme tend to spiral downward until they nominate someone who is not beholden to their narrow, extreme base.”
Isn’t this what we are seeing with the Democrat Party? Obama was elected, not because he was the most liberal of all U.S. Senators in 2007, but because most swing voters refused to believe it. His head fake to the center let them to believe that he would govern like a centrist. Now a severe case of buyers’ remorse is setting in as they realize that the man they voted for is an extreme leftist.
It’s not like conservatives didn’t try to warn them...
I agree with Palin as the number two candidate - I really like her, but she just isn’t ready for the topspot. Not sure about the general though - where he stands on the issues.
anybody thinks Gingrich would stand a chance?
i’d have no problems with Sarah on top
of the ticket
all things considered he was as good or better than anyone in the 20th century, before or after except for Reagan.
so yeah he wasn't great but he would be more than a breath of fresh air today....
Ike is my second-favorite President behind Reagan, he saved the GOP.
That`s right, reverse it then we talk!
I’m with you.
Palin and Patraeus, maybe.
Palin first. She’ll choose the Vice President. I’m favoring Michele Bachmann, although having her as Speaker of the House would be such poetic justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.