No.

Are we already saying Palin's a bad idea?

GradysGhost: Are we already saying Palin's a bad idea?

I think America said that last November.

That's a foreign sounding name...

The fact that even that website has a question mark on the title means even THEY have doubts. LOL.

Anybody who is calling for David Patraeus to run for office needs to read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (^)

Hmmm..... pass.

(Hotlinked)

/Thought defeating Lincoln would be a piece of cake.

Why, because he's a general? One war will be over by 2012 and the other will probably be phasing down by then. So unless he's got a great plan for domestic policy in mind, I'm not listening.

I'd probably vote for him.

It would be interesting, but I think Gen. Petraeus is too professional to let something like this undermine his current mission.

timoteo2: /Thought defeating Lincoln would be a piece of cake.

If memory serves, until Gettysburg, Lincoln did look very beatable. Plus didn't McClellan just about disown the Copperhead Democrat's platform?

/ Too lazy to Wiki any of the above.

I think anybody who reaches the top of their profession probably has a pretty good ego.

Clarence Potter: timoteo2: /Thought defeating Lincoln would be a piece of cake.

If memory serves, until Gettysburg, Lincoln did look very beatable. Plus didn't McClellan just about disown the Copperhead Democrat's platform?

/ Too lazy to Wiki any of the above.

Lincoln-lover!!



(How did they lose?)

Petraeus has too much class to run as a Republican.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshiat" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

Woo-hoo! Ass-Kissing Little Chickenshiat for President!

Ow! That was my feelings!: I think anybody who reaches the top of their profession probably has a pretty good ego.

wrong thread...

Betrayus?

Sym_pathetic: Lincoln-lover!!

Given my non de Fark, I am laughing!

Don't you mean, Betray-Us? HAHAHAHAHA!!11!!

/Got nothing

BrokenDrew:

Blast, you beat me to it.

Right, because we really wanna return to the narrative of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2016.

I need to know more about his philosophies and politics, but I can't see how he would be worse.

/Never happen.

President Betray-us.

King, a hawk who is the ranking Republican on the House homeland security committee, likened Petraeus' crossover appeal to that of his friend Rudy Giuliani.

I think he just divided nine by eleven.

Er, he hasn't retired yet, has he? Isn't that kindof a necessary precondition?

I'm sorry...but isn't it still 2009? Wasn't the last election just last year? Didn't the current president just get sworn in in February? Isn't he not even 1 year into his 4 year term?

Why in the fark are people saying "*namegoeshere* for president, 2012"? Seriously.

Keep throwing them at the wall. Something's got to stick by 2012.

was the unlikely tag on break?

You really want THIS man as president?!?

I'd go for this purely because I think Petraeus is a decent guy and a campaign between he and Barack Obama would probably be the cleanest, most straight forward campaign the U.S. has ever known. One in which the demagogues would be sidelined and there might be an honest discourse between intellectual equals about clarifying positions and distinctions, and pursuing their logical ends.

Lost Thought 00: Er, he hasn't retired yet, has he? Isn't that kindof a necessary precondition?

I dunno... MacArthur appeared on the R's slate during WI's 1948 Presidential Campaign.

Has anybody mentioned the whole "betray us" thing? If not, someone really should. It would be quite comical.

ZipSplat: I'd go for this purely because I think Petraeus is a decent guy and a campaign between he and Barack Obama would probably be the cleanest, most straight forward campaign the U.S. has ever known. One in which the demagogues would be sidelined and there might be an honest discourse between intellectual equals about clarifying positions and distinctions, and pursuing their logical ends.

I thought the same thing about McCain/Obama.

Peter von Nostrand: Has anybody mentioned the whole "betray us" thing? If not, someone really should. It would be quite comical.

Yeah, yeah, it wasn't even funny the first 1000 times, okay?

Since when is Peter King a moderate? I'm guessing compared to the new GOP majority of teabaggers he is one.

noneyourbase: ZipSplat: I'd go for this purely because I think Petraeus is a decent guy and a campaign between he and Barack Obama would probably be the cleanest, most straight forward campaign the U.S. has ever known. One in which the demagogues would be sidelined and there might be an honest discourse between intellectual equals about clarifying positions and distinctions, and pursuing their logical ends.

I thought the same thing about McCain/Obama.

Ditto. Petreus might be straightforward and honest, but his political adviser wouldn't be. Being straightforward and honest is an incredibly risky tactic in politics. Obama was moreso than Hillary and McCain/Palin, but that doesn't mean things have changed. People just don't like Hillary and didn't like Republicans at the time.

Ask George McGovern how running on honesty works when you are going against a shameless liar.

He came back to his old home town near me for a ceremony in his honor and a brief speech.

Bottom line? He's boring. Sincere and dedicated and competent and doesn't stand a chance in hell.

He could be FDR, Churchill and Aragorn combined...but if he's shiatty on TV he goes nowhere.

Only your dog wants steak. Everybody else votes for sizzle.

noneyourbase: I thought the same thing about McCain/Obama.

kinda the same thing i was thinking.


that, and something about unicorn farts.

ZipSplat: I'd go for this purely because I think Petraeus is a decent guy and a campaign between he and Barack Obama would probably be the cleanest, most straight forward campaign the U.S. has ever known. One in which the demagogues would be sidelined and there might be an honest discourse between intellectual equals about clarifying positions and distinctions, and pursuing their logical ends.

I like your idea, but we are talking politics here so you can pretty much exclude "clean" and "intellectual" from the discussion.
And that goes for both sides.

"Nobody's ever going to vote General BETRAY-us for president. He'll BETRAY us to our ENEMIES!!1!!" ~ Moveon.org

Bocanegra: "Nobody's ever going to vote General BETRAY-us for president. He'll BETRAY us to our ENEMIES!!1!!" ~ Moveon.org

John Kerry agrees.

And here's why it'll never happen. (new window)

Well every liberal from 2004 that made the 'war veteran makes a better president' argument would vote for him no matter what his positions were I'm sure, just like they voted of McCain right?

Good generals make bad presidents.

Ancient Chinese saying I just made up.

Can we get someone on the ballot who doesn't want to maintain a state of perpetual war?

I remember the last time people started jumping up and down for a general to run for president.

No, not this one:



This one:



Remember?

Balrog: Petraeus has too much class to run as a Republican.

Because the Demorats are all about farkin' class... right?