McCain/Petraeus = Overwhelming Victory

286_mccain Having spoken my piece on Biden, I turn to the Republicans.

McCain is likely to win the election because of the "issues" now built into the Obama campaign but he is a terrible, boring, sleep inducing speaker.  Without the impact of his biography or at least the image of his biography carefully cultivated over the years he is an uninteresting candidate.  I believe that his candidacy needs some "juice" in the person of a running mate who will "close the deal" with America.  He can win without that but like any military man he wants to load up the odds in his favor to insure an overwhelming victory.

It is likely that he will pick Romney.  That is what the professional pols are urging on him.  They think Romney is a safe choice.  Most of them are Washington and New York secularists, and cynics.  They see the world through lenses that have dollar signs engraved on them.  They see Romney as a business wise asset with which to balance McCain’s view of himself as the central figure in a Wagnerian drama.  Theology does not matter to most of these professional politicians.  If they are associated with some church or other congregation their allegiance is largely a matter of social conformity and life cycle event facilitation.  They do not really grasp the fact that many Christians in this country think Mormons are Christians only by their own definition of the word.  They do not grasp the fact that in "the heartland" there are people who will not vote for the ticket based on that alone.  Would that defeat McCain?  Probably not, but why take a chance?

McCain should ask General Petraeus to retire from the Army to run with him.  Petraeus is youthful, well spoken, handsome, intelligent, successful in the war in Iraq, youthful, and youthful.  Petraeus has reached the top in his profession.  There is no "up" in the Army from full general and theater commander.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  Yawn…  The professional politicians would probably not like to have Petraeus on the ticket, but his presence there would make victory inevitable.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to McCain/Petraeus = Overwhelming Victory

  1. Curious says:

    Big mistake by Obama a few weeks back. He let up and went on vacation. (yes he needed it and can afford it. but It gives McCain breathing room.)
    McCain is old and it shows. His campaign management skill and talking point control is not tight. He keeps changing people, messages are not coherent, He barely keep up with modern campaign pace. All he has going for him is GOP campaign machine, which is still ruthless.(Media control, money thus ability to push message hard to public)
    McCain is like an old boxer. He still has his reflect and good coach. But his timing is not as good, he can’t quite anticipate what new tricks the kids are using, and he can’t counter act combination as quick.
    Obama team should never let GOP media machine dictate the general pace. Because then McCain is in good footing. They should force McCain to use his stamina near his breaking point. Force him to fast pace campaigning, force him to make quick decision, bombard him with questions, … etc.
    That should decouple GOP media machine pace and timing with actual McCain physical ability to process situation.
    Once the system crack, they will start bleeding money again, trying to fix the damage. Obama team better get going, it will take 4-6 weeks to rev up GOP campaign speed to near breaking point, then start throwing punch. It’s all coming down to mechanics and precision now. Everybody already knows the whole set of talking points and tricks.
    McCain campaign crew isn’t as tight as Obama team. He just changed it few months back. Make them sweat.

  2. zanzibar says:

    What does an McCain/Petraeus or McCain/Romney administration mean in terms of economic and foreign policy?
    Does it mean Wall Street and KStreet dominated policy on economics and neo-con oriented international relations?
    How would they work with a Democratic majority Congress?

  3. JohnS says:

    The McCain strategy has been pretty clear since his team brought in Rove protegé Steve Schmidt: all smears, all the time, from mocking Obama’s “celebrity” to charging that Obama puts wanting to be pres ahead of his country to even suggesting that Obama was responsible for high gas prices.
    Obama’s job? A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds, “8 in 10 say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the USA, and even more rate the economy as ‘only fair’ or poor. 7 in 10 say it’s getting worse.” He must counterattack in kind when he gets smeared, while clearly tying McCain to the Bush/GOP crew who are responsible for “the way things are going in the USA,” while offering his own concrete prescriptions for change.
    It’s still much too early in the GE campaign to make any kind of predictions. Team Obama ceded Team McCain/Rove the month of August (Obama’s European Tour and vacation). Team McCain took that opportunity to go heavily negative on him for the entire month. The damage could have been much worse. Anything can happen between the conventions, debates, and election day. I’d like to note that Team Obama performed very well in the primary, knocking out my favored candidate. And again, note that McCain has no ground, GOTV game, where Obama’s is formidable. I would not write them off at this point by any means.

  4. JohnS says:

    I would add that McCain’s whole “the Surge is working” bit is extremely debatable now that it looks like Maliki’s gov’t is looking to break up the U.S. funded/backed Sunni Awakening Councils. So much for political reconciliation in Iraq.

  5. WOW! Recommending a double dose of militarism when what the country needs is a clamp on the military-industrial-academic complex that strives for continuing a US hegemony even as the country lurches into bankruptcy. Chamlers Johnson is not always right but his books “Blowback”, “The Sorrows of Empire” and “Nemisis” are not totally off base. The military leadership is not the best and the brightest whatever degrees the Generals have acquired. Lack of honest and lack of vision seem to be the key criteria. Remember as demonstreated recently in Georgia not all options are in the hands of the US.

  6. bstr says:

    Now you’ve done it. I hope the McSame camp does not read the SST. Please do not mention this again, the walls have ears, and possibly eyes.Sush.

  7. John Hammer says:

    Back in 1996 (in Korea) my infantry company commander told us a story of when he was a platoon leader in the 101st Airborne. The story was told as a result of my sending a three round burst in a southern direction at a trench range. You don’t do that in Korea, all rounds go north. Thank God I did not hurt anybody. Anyway, when the high speed company commander was with the 101st he was at a range and a “Joe” accidentally put a bullet into his battalion commander. It hit one of the Lt. Col.’s ribs so when it blew out the other side… yeah, that’s bad. Despite all this, the bat. commander’s main complaint was that he was becoming a training “distractor”. Once General Petraeus became a famous guy, I read about the same incident exactly as it was conveyed to me in Korea. The high speed company commander now commands a battalion of 172 Airborne in Afghanistan.

  8. lina says:

    Just a reminder to those who think national polls are giving them a good prognostication, you can stay focused on the real horse race here:
    Keep your eye on the pie chart at the top left of the page. The only way McCain wins this election is with 270 electoral college votes. He can put Richard Coeur de Lion on his ticket and it won’t get him that magic number.
    Plus, you may recall Kerry lost in 2004 by 118,000 votes in the state of Ohio. This year, Ohio has same day voter registration. That means every college kid in the state can register AND vote on Nov. 4.
    As goes the 18-34 year old vote in Ohio, so goes the electoral college.

  9. memjfm1 says:

    And tell me again why the good General Petraeus would want to do as you suggest?
    I continually wonder why today any sane self-respecting American would aspire to the national stage. When General Petraeus leaves the uniform he will depart with the well earned sincere gratitude of the American public….regardless of their persuasion on the war. Dubya wanders off with widespread disdain and public scorn. And the good general would want to sign up for that?

  10. SteveB says:

    I disagree. To the extent that Republicans are exposed during this election it’s primarily on two issues, the war in Iraq (and more largely on how they’ve executed the war on terror) and their domestic economic policies. How does Petraeus help with either of these? Additionally, for a 4-star to retire from the military to join the ticket as a VP candidate removes the protection that has, for the most part, shielded Petraeus’s actions and statements from a more damning judgment that he appears sometimes to be guided more by a personal ambition and loyalty to Republicans than the best interests of the force.

  11. Mad Dogs says:

    Pat wrote: McCain is likely to win the election because of the “issues” now built into the Obama campaign but he is a terrible, boring, sleep inducing speaker.”
    I’ve got a nickel that says you’re wrong. *g*

  12. Bill W, NH, USA says:

    My bet is that he’ll pick Joe Lieberman and that will cause him to lose the election.

  13. Sven Ortmann says:

    Maybe I misunderstood the guy at CNN, but if I understood correctly, one of their commenters (the 30ish black guy with rather liberal stance) said that McCain would – if undeterred by Realpolitik – probably want to have Ron Paul as vice.
    That would be an extremely interesting and confusing move.
    The Democrats would be confused (many of Paul’s fans likely planned to vote for Obama) and the Republicans as well (McCain is no conservative maverick if compared to Paul).
    Petraeus stated repeatedly that he doesn’t intend to run for a public office, ever.
    He’s busy keeping the fruits of his ‘surge’ project alive, anyway.

  14. linda says:

    yeah. just what this country needs — another legacy with his daddy issues who feels the presidency his due because of his vietnam experience. while he turns over the actual running of the country — because mccain clearly has shown absolutely no interest in the vast majority of issues confronting us — to a politicized general eager to exploit religion to advance.

  15. VietnamVet says:

    The politicians have a good reason to push Mitt Romney; tickets with military officers as vice presidents have not done that well recently: George Wallace – General Curtis Lemay or Ross Perot – Admiral James Stockdale. A John McCain – General David Petraeus ticket would be a disaster for the GOP. There are sound reasons that there is no draft or taxes to pay for the Global War on Terror. If imposed, the troops would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan a lot sooner than 2013. A vote for John McCain – General David Petraeus ticket is a vote for war everywhere all the time; with thousands of nuclear weapons on red alert.
    If the radicals had controlled the GOP back in 1952 and had put forth a Robert Taft – General Douglas MacArthur ticket to whip the Commies in Korea, an another Illinois politician would have been elected President. Dwight Eisenhower’s pledge to go to Korea was clear cut promise to the voters that he intended to end the Korean “Police Action”.

  16. J says:

    i don’t see petraeus being the boone to mccain that you hypothesize. in fact i see petraeus on such a ticket would be a reminder to the voting public (the non-diehard republicans) the number of american miltary deaths in iraq have been for what — israel’s benefit — not u.s. interests. petraeus would be a reminder to the voter that the war was built on lies by the bush administration through their enablers like mccain. petraeus’s face permanently etches the failed bush admin. policies on the mind of the voter.

  17. Lysander says:

    That would be an interesting choice. It would certainly rally “the base” which is essential for McCain, in a way that Romney never could.
    OTH, even after the post surge improvements, people still don’t like the war. And for good reason. The best you can say about it is that after 5 years of struggle and expense (I’m not talking about dead Iraqis as honestly they don’t figure in this election) the U.S. is still not better off than it would have been had it left well enough alone. Having another man on the ticket so closely associated with the war is not going to help McCain with swing voters. Most people want to move on from Iraq. They don’t want to be reminded of it all the time.
    Keep in mind that Bush Sr. won an unequivocal victory in Iraq at minimal cost, ran against a draft dodger and still lost.

  18. Patrick Lang says:

    Well. That stirred you up.
    Collectively, you still can’t differentiate between analysis and advocacy. That’s a problem.
    I don’t advocate for either Obama or McCain. This is just analysis.
    Why would Petraeus want to do this? AMBITION! AMBITION! Why do you think he does anything?
    He said he does not want elected office? Puh-leez! What a joke!
    He would be blamed for the war? No! He would not.
    He is a militarist? No. He is an intellectual who understands the proper role of the military in American life. McCain is the nutty one, not Petraeus.
    We don’t like military presidents? Washington? Taylor? Harrison (both) Garfield? Hayes? Teddy Roosevelt? Eisenhower? what did you say?
    Don’t let your politics blind you. pl

  19. Nancy K says:

    I am sooo sick of politics in this country. the economy is in the pits, we are looking stupid to the rest of the world, our housing market is bankrupt etc etc etc, and what are we focusing on, a women’s right to choose, gay marriage, the surge. This Country needs to come togather, I can’t believe that we are so completely divided that we are unable to be the United States any longer. Maybe we should just change our name to the Ununited States of America.

  20. Tim says:

    If McCain’s managers haven’t already thought of this they are not doing their job. It is obvious that the Petraeus ambition does not stop at General so I thought he was positioning himself for a 2012 run. Why not now? If Cheney approves and provides a little help there would be no stopping them.

  21. Walrus says:

    Being an Australian, all I can offer is the Greek proverb.
    “Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.”

  22. zanzibar says:

    I believe this Nov the winner will be decided by the voters in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado.
    Maybe it will all come down to Ohio once again. And as Lina points out there is a new wringer with same day registration. Additionally, I don’t believe there is something similar to “gay marriage” on the ballot this time.
    But…Pennsylvania could be closer than we think and could flip to be a red state this go around.

  23. CP says:

    PL at 02:08 PM
    Exactly. Patraeus has the chance to be the Emperor of Rome.
    Don’t rule anything out.

  24. Richard Armstrong says:

    pl: “He is a militarist? No. He is an intellectual who understands the proper role of the military in American life.”
    It has always been my observation having been raised in a military officers family and doing a short enlistment myself that it is ONLY the military that really do understand the “role of the military in American life.”
    Perhaps my acquaintence has always been limited to the “good guys”, however I’m of the impression it is this deep abiding understanding of function and duty that has and will continue to prevent the possibility of a military coup.
    As for militarization? Please. Eisenhower warned us about where were headed as a nation, and he was right.

  25. Mad Dogs says:

    Pat wrote: “Collectively, you still can’t differentiate between analysis and advocacy. That’s a problem.”
    Hah! I’ve still got that nickel if you’re on to a wager. *g*
    Seriously, I think most here did in fact understand you were in analysis-mode rather than advocacy-mode. You most often are.
    And with respect to an analysis, given no explosive campaign events (more terror attacks on US soil, more war in the ME or Near Caucasus, more marital infidelities, etc.), the strength of the GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts of the Democrats this time around (the unpolled youth vote will be one of the margins to victory) coupled with the general national disgust with the Republican-led direction of this country for the last 8 years, the McSame crew is going to have to run a near-perfect campaign just to stay competitive.
    Ain’t gonna happen!
    I think the candidate himself will implode, and more than once in a serious vote-losing way.
    Also, the Democrats this time around are loaded for bear and are willing to pull the trigger.
    Their mud-slinging efforts have yet to begin in earnest. I think their most effective mud to sling will be not personal (though that will be done too), but instead will be tying the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney noose unremovably around the neck of McSame.
    The Republicans will compete with their own normal “politics of destruction” efforts, but I think that both Obama and Biden seem far more capable of beating back the attacks than previous Democratic candidates.
    It’s a long way to November (and Tippecanoe and Tyler too), so let the games begin!
    Who’s got the popcorn?

  26. J says:

    i still say that petraeus would be a ‘reminder’ to the voter of the failed bush admin. policies and needless american military deaths in iraq, not necessarily the cause of them.
    previous u.s. presidents who were ‘military presidents’ were they not ‘winners’ or non-volatile periods? whereas petraeus is ‘forever tied to the bush admin. failures’ whether he likes it or not, whether petraeus deserves it or not.

  27. ISL says:

    I thought to argue that it is unclear why Petraeus would want to go for this electoral cycle, but upon reflection, this is probably his best opportunity. If McCain wins, then a VP is locked in for the next electoral cycle, and keeping his political capitol high for 8 years is quite a challenge? If Obama wins, the power of incumbency could delay for two cycles, with the added likelihood that if things go south (again) in Iraq or Afghanistan, Petraeus becomes a convenient fall guy for a President Obama.
    Five minutes with google suggests he would be very acceptable to the critical evangelical base.
    Curious is right, Obama should not have gone on vacation, nor had such ineffective surrogates while on said inappropriate vacation. When one is ahead in a marathon, one can slow down, but a siesta reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare.

  28. bstr says:

    Impossible to keep my mouth shut when I know I should. Here is what I believe the Col. sees that which many of you miss. Most of those who write into SST are of sympathetic views. When you are in a like-minded environment you can miss what seems obvious to someone outside the community’s point of view. In many ways Pat Lang is a professional contrarian and can visualize an unattractive senario, even in the midst of a closed environment. It might be fatal, in your mind, for McSame to be on the same ticket as another military mind, but in the OC and other such communities it sounds just swell.

  29. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    An academic colleague of mine who follows domestic politics, said at lunch today, “It’s for Obama to lose.” He suggested Lugar for SecState and Nunn for DOD as a way to add weight and some bipartisan foreign policy emphasis to the ticket.
    But in a delusional America is this enough?
    “…O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason…”

  30. Arun says:

    The problem is we don’t know Petraeus’ political views.

  31. Patrick Lang says:

    Nobody knew Eisenhower’s political views either. pl

  32. Arun says:

    If Petraeus is politically ambitious, he might be better off running in 2012 for the Presidency rather than running as VP with McCain in 2008.

  33. cb says:

    The GOP needs St. Lord Jesus His High Holiness General Petraeus in a uniform, so they can hide behind it. In a suit? Dave Petraeus, just another schmuck. The fetishization of the uniform is effective, but it imposes some tactical costs.

  34. Paul says:

    If, as Colonel Lang states, a McCain/Petraeus ticket would be a winning combination, it would in my judgment be a crippling blow to our nation and its people.
    We face unprecedented monetary, industrial and social deficits (in every sense of that word) and we have a military that is, by all accounts, broken and in disrepair. The physical infrastructure of the country has crumbled with no relief planned. This ticket would insure that we become the next “banana republic” in the Western Hemisphere. In eight short years Bush blew through a $2 Trillion surplus and created a deficit that will easily double that amount. McCain/Petraeus would continue deficit spending.
    McCain/Petraeus is a recipe for disaster. Why? Because they would be ready to make military threats all over the globe. “We are all Georgians”, said McCain! How can we accomplish anything in the face of present and future deficits? Of course, the pair is great for DOD contractors and lobbyists, but what about the domestic bills that are due? Would McCain/Petraeus tell China and other creditors to “stuff it” should they cash in their chips?
    There seems to be unanimous opinion (except the die-hards) that McCain is loose cannon, but there is sentiment that Petraeus is brilliant and top-notch. I don’t know the man, but my instinct tells me he’s a “brown-noser” and “fair-haired boy”.
    Petraeus is said to be the author and executor of the Iraq “Surge”. He and his patron, Bush, calculated that the “terrorists/insurgents” were the main element to be controlled, and their “no timelines” edicts suggested they thought they were in control of events “on the ground”. How many times did we hear that? All pronouncements from Petraeus’ lips: “six more months” “we are not quite ready to draw-down”; “the Iraq military is not ready” reflected a belief that his main mission was to isolate or neutralize the “terrorists/insurgents” on our unspecified time-table. “Iraqi benchmarks?” Allow me to hand you these Power Point presentations filled with my metrics, said Petraeus.
    Neither Bush nor Petraeus expected that Maliki would show them the door as he is now doing. Maliki’s action shows that Petraeus may not know what the hell he’s doing for he has lost control. His legacy may be that by extending the occupation he created the situation that will allow Iran to assert influence – and perhaps control – over the Iraqis.

  35. zanzibar says:

    Although I believe that McCain is the best thing that the Obama campaign has going for them and the right track/wrong track poll favors the Democrats overwhelmingly – I do not take Pat’s analysis lightly. Pat has the incisive intel analyst mindset and in my gut I can relate to what he sees in the vast American electorate.
    Team McCain has had a free ride through the summer to shape the voter gut. Team Obama blew it by throwing Wes Clark under the bus rather than picking up and amplifying on Clark’s neutralization of the POW card. Will Biden and Team Obama counter-attack now before its too late and similarly try to re-shape the voter gut to make a difference in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Colorado. The states where I believe the 2008 presidential election will be decided. IMO, this election like the recent one’s we’ve had will turn on voter’s inherent prejudices and their gut perceptions of the character of the individual candidates and not their laundry list of policy prescriptions. I think the best advice for the Democrats for this fall’s campaign is what Krugman in his op-ed Go Negative suggests – “tarnish Mr. McCain’s image enough so that voters see this as a race between a Democrat and a Republican. And that’s a race the Democrat will easily win.”
    We’ll know soon enough as the conventions end. So far Team Obama has not chosen the winning plays.

  36. Patrick Lang says:

    As I remember it, Petraeus was going to go to Iraq to apply the COIN thingy that he is erroneously thought to have re-discovered like Joe Smith (oops) when a couple of things happened to him 1- the awakening and 2- the “surge” as a strategy. As I recall that was cooked up over at AEI by Kagan and the former vice chief of staff of the army, Keene. Petraeus being a young man who know when to say yes, incprporated that smartly into his bag of goodies. The rest is history. pl

  37. Patrick Lang says:

    I really think Petraeus would be better off now rather than in 2012. If McCain is elected without him, then the VP will want the job. If Obama is elected, then Petreus would have to remember that he was a Democrat all along.
    At the risk of scandalizing a young marine captain who wrote on his blog that I should be more reverent, I think the “Obambi” thing is a scream. pl

  38. Pat allow me to introduce a very rough analysis in the form of questions.
    Would a McCain/Petraeus ticket instantly become the most ‘celebrity’ combo possible?
    Isn’t its appeal dependent on the same unconscious fusion of mass emotion with qualities projected on men that are now derided by McCain?
    (It would be ironic if McCain opted to advantage himself the same way Obama, in part, has also done. I tend to agree that for reasons of social psychology it would be a very tough ticket to wound and vanquish.)

  39. J says:

    may i ask since when do you have to be ‘reverent’ to anybody? — reverent to ‘whom’?

  40. John Shreffler says:

    Think Progress has a piece up entitled “Petraeus disagrees with McCain, Says Success in Iraq May Have Been Possible Without the Surge.” McCain seems to have 2 basic sentences, one with a noun, a verb, and POW, and another where “I was right about the Surge” replaces the POW 3rd component. Maybe it’s Romney after all. Gen P. may be too much of thinker for Johnny Mac.

  41. Cieran says:

    Fascinating notion, Colonel. I think it all depends on what one would mean by “victory”.
    So consider this polemic…
    I would suggest that once again, “it’s the economy, stupid”, and McCain plus Petraeus together add up to no clue whatsoever about the most important problem currently facing the U.S., namely the bewildering range of serious threats to the U.S. economy.
    For but one example, there is a direct connection between the military and the economy (as Andrew Bacevich has so eloquently pointed out). Our discretionary government spending is in very large part military in nature, and no serious attempt to cut the deficit (much less pay back the debt, which has been skyrocketing since Bush took office) can succeed without substantial cuts in military spending.
    Don’t believe me, look up the numbers yourself. Note that the current DoD annual budget is approximately equal to the current annual deficit, and then think about what that means (namely, that we are financing virtually all of our military operations via a big credit card whose bills will be mailed to our children — and just how sustainable is that going to be?).
    Or alternatively, it means that we could cut the military budget to zero (not recommended in today’s world!), and still owe a crushing financial burden of annual interest on the national debt (and said interest is also approximately equal to the size of the annual DoD budget, namely something in the neighborhood of a half-trillion dollars per year).
    As a nation, we’re broke, and rapidly getting more broke, and there’s just no let-up in sight.
    We are entering what can only be called the “Blanche DuBois” period of modern American economic history, namely, henceforth “we are always going to be dependent on the kindness of strangers”, with said strangers having names like Dubai, or China, or… hell, like Russia!
    Now maybe in the “only Nixon could go to China” vein, “only McCain and Petraeus could cut military expenditures”, but I just don’t see anything in either of these two candidates that would indicate they possess those kinds of leadership qualities. Hope springs eternal, but…
    So the second worst thing that can happen to the GOP in Nov 2008 is for Obama to win the presidency. And the absolute worst possible thing that can happen to the GOP in Nov 2008 is for McCain to win. Because another couple years of GOP rule, with the attendant economic disasters it produces, will end the Republican brand once and for all.
    And to anyone who disagrees, consider this: going into the 2004 elections, what everybody was talking about in political circles was the certainty of a permanent Republican majority at the national level, in the White House, and in Congress.
    Bush won re-election, and within two years, nobody was talking about that permanent majority any more. The problem with the modern GOP is that almost no one left in the party has any semblance of a clue how to govern in the real world, and in the long run, we tend to reward political parties by the results they produce, not by the sophistry of their TV ads.
    In McCain’s case, those results will likely be more wars and more debt and more misery, General Petraeus or no. And that’s why a McCain/Petraeus “victory” might really mean winning the electoral battle while setting the stage for losing the political war.
    Victory, yes… hollow, very likely.
    Now Romney, that’s another story altogether, but I’ve ranted enough, so…
    thus ends this polemic!

  42. tons15 says:

    I have to agree with ‘Curious’s first comment – that McCain’s stamina needs to be tested, but not by the Obama campaign – but by the media – they should bombard him with questions – so far they are giving him a lot of free passes… The media are not pro Obama, as I see it

  43. greg0 says:

    I really enjoy reading this website. Lots of good comments.
    The name Andrew Jackson didn’t come up on PL’s list – too obvious?
    Petraeus debating Biden could have some fireworks. It should get high ratings. And what does the media love more than profit?
    On the serious side, I’d hate to see a neocon militarist ticket win in 2008. The future could be quite radioactive.

  44. fnord says:

    Sir. Very interesting post, as usual. A MC Cain/Petraeus ticket would surely win, and would be a interesting way to hold a military coup. Wich, from a military pov is exactly what the US needs right now in my opinion. However, the same goes for Obama: Why he hasnt been smooching up more to the good general, or for that sake why he has not tried to get Adm Fallon and all the “fallen” generals like Sanchez the Slimeball and others to play a part is curious.
    “Collectively, you still can’t differentiate between analysis and advocacy. That’s a problem.”
    That seems to be a very common american failing, often mixed in with a lack of cynicism and sarcasm.
    “Why would Petraeus want to do this? AMBITION! AMBITION! Why do you think he does anything?”
    One could also argue that he might want to go into politics for unselfish reasons, such as making sure there is no war with Iran, that the Army finally gets some money, to kick AF arse and bury certain idiotic missileshield plans for good, to micromanage the Information Ops-structure, to get the Afghanistan situation somehow back on an even keel. But to do that, I guess he should choose the democrats.?

  45. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Well what about the beer baroness? Off to Georgia it seems….
    ” CINDY McCain, wife of US Republican presidential candidate John McCain, is traveling to Georgia this week to assess the humanitarian situation there after its military conflict with Russia, the Arizona senator said overnight….”,21985,24242690-5005961,00.html

  46. david says:

    Did you not see Obama’s questioning Petraeus in before the Senate foreign relations committee last spring. It was artful, to say the least.
    I think the Col. is right with respect to certain voting demographics — a McCain/Petraeus ticket would be a landslide among certain groups. But just as in the Dem. primary, we are going to see a huge generational split come the first Tuesday in November. Can Obama get the young’uns (under 40) out to the polls? I don’t know, but if you think he was ‘vacationing’ in Hawaii, you don’t know how image conscious modern political campaigners are.

  47. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per a McCain presidential scenario, here is a reasonable assessment by Robert Parry. He has not included the beer baroness’ trip to Georgia as an indicator.:
    ” In judging the shape of a future John McCain presidency, there are already plenty of dots that are easy to connect. They reveal an image of a war-like Empire so full of hubris that it could take the world into a cascade of crises, while extinguishing what is left of the noble American Republic.”

  48. Dana Jones says:

    This has future implications as well. Colin Powell in ’12 anyone? How about a Petraeus/Powell ticket?
    Oh hell, why not just abolish Congress and put the military in charge, they seem to be running things anyway. That way we can give the Neo Klowns their fondest dream, eliminate all government spending except defense.

  49. dlb says:

    A truly horrible idea, pl.

  50. al palumbo says:

    All you need to know:
    Case closed.

  51. J says:

    mccain names alaska gop governor sarah palin as his vprez running mate.

  52. J says:

    mccain picking an individual who has been accused of abusing power is not a good start to the mccain prez and his vprez pick’s run for the white house. this does NOT look good for mccain.
    Investigation to begin into whether Governor Sarah Palin abused her power in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan – KTVA

Comments are closed.