Who would you vote for as the next President?

An email friend of mine advanced the notion of General Petraeus running in 2012.  The man has shown himself to be incredibly competent, but I don’t know much more about him.  He certainly has executive experience.  My friend, who knows (or knows of him) quite well says that he has many of the virtues that would make both a good candidate and a good president.  I have no knowledge of whether he wants to run, but it’s an interesting concept.

Since 2012 is coming upon us quickly (thank goodness), I was interested in your preferences and created a poll. Since I’m new to poll creating, the “none of the above” option is unanchored, and drifts, but I trust you’ll figure it out. Also, if you don’t see a potential candidate you like in my poll, leave a comment with the person’s name.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • CollegeCon

    Hmmm, Petraeus would be interesting, and I have no doubt he would be infinitely better than what we have now, but I wonder if he might be better suited for a cabinet position or vice presidency. He might be almost universally repected and admired now, but in a presidential campaign he would be bound to lose some luster. In a lesser role he keeps it, and he can still play a major part in shaping policy. What do I know though, I’m just a freshman :-)

  • suek

    You might consider Jim DeMint as a possibility.

    Jindal has real possibilities – but may also have the “natural born” eligibility issue. The dems ignore it with Obama and have buried it. If it’s a legitimate issue with Jindal, don’t expect the same thing. It should be cleared up before it becomes an issue – whatever the outcome is.

    >>He might be almost universally repected and admired now, but in a presidential campaign he would be bound to lose some luster.>>

    Of course. With the smear merchants at work, what candidate won’t?

  • CollegeCon

    I don’t suppose there’s any way to see the number of votes is there? Just to get a better idea of the difference.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    44 votes so far. Need more.

  • Gringo

    Book: 44 votes so far. Need more.

    I could get you more votes by doing it Chicago style- vote early and vote often- but I’m not sure that’s what you want.

    I went with the General. (My first choice last year was Giuliani.) While Eisenhower did well as a General, candidate, and as President, one difference between his situation and that of Petraeus’s is that the whole country was glad of Eisenhower’s success in war, but a substantial part of the country will hold it against Petraeus that he had success in Iraq. Lest others consider me to be off the wall on this, I refer to the poll taken some time back in which 20% of Democrats wanted us to fail in Iraq.

  • suek

    >>Lest others consider me to be off the wall on this, I refer to the poll taken some time back in which 20% of Democrats wanted us to fail in Iraq.>>

    Noooo. You mean they actually wanted President Bush to (gasp!!) _FAIL_???

    The _SHOCK_…!!


    I am going with Eric Cantor –

    someone to undo all the damage that BO causes.

    someone who won’t think twice about using the word terrorists.

  • http://sillielizziesrock.blogspot.com sillielizzie

    Jim DeMint

  • Gringo

    For what it is worth, here is the poll I referred to, from a year and a half ago.


  • http://neomodernism.net Huan

    generals coming from a rigid hierarchy of the military command structures may have a difficult time with the wheeling and dealing and compromises necessary for successful politics.

    my vote:
    P = Palin
    VP = petraeus

  • Oldflyer

    Most of them would be acceptable.

    I did not vote for Petraeus because he just did an interview on FNC and said he would not run. If he changed his mind, I would be put him at the top of my list in a heart-beat. I do not agree with Huan however, Any 4 star general is an excellent politician. He might have trouble with the fundraising and campaigning, but if elected he would have no trouble navigating Washington.

    I love Palin. I think 2012 would be early for her. I would love to see her on the VP ticket with a competent campaign in 12; but don’t suppose she would go that route again. The Dims are going to work very hard over the next four years to make her toxic. I am saddened to think of what she and her family will face. They do not deserve it. I would not be surprised if she opts to never enter the national stage again. ( I took my McCain/Palin ball cap and marked out McCain with a black sharpie and still wear my Palin cap proudly. Also trimmed McCain off of my bumper sticker. Did I say I love Sarah Palin and all she represents?)

    Romney was my guy. He will probably be again.

    I think Sanford is pretty good. Don’t really know enough about him right now though.

    I like Jindal. He is very young. Would love to see him in a high level cabinet post or as VP in 12.

    Pawlenty. Don’t know. He has a good reputation, but nothing specific.

    Tonight, Mark Levin played a recording of a Ronald Reagan speech from ’64 when he was campaigning for Goldwater. My God! Why can’t conservatives find someone who communicates like that? You can hear it on http://www.marklevinshow.com

  • Mike Devx

    Yes, Levin’s three-hour show today was 5-star all the way through. One of his very best.

    The Reagan speech segments were incredible. Especially in that they showed how little, really, has changed since ’64. As great as he was then, he governed California for a while and then ran in ’76 and won in ’80… sixteen years later.

    And there’s no one on the conservative side who can compare to him even in ’64. I hope we’re not beginning twenty years in the wilderness.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Oldflyer, I heard that Reagan speech too (or parts of it) and was blown away. I’m so embarrassed to think of all the years I never actually listened to Reagan, but simply accepted, blindly and stupidly, the media’s assessment that he was a senile old warmonger. What clarity of thought, what humor, what excellent communication of simple concepts. No wonder he was called the Great Communicator. I wish I could have appreciated that during his lifetime.

  • Charles Martel

    Book, I’m sorry to say that I stumbled through the same wilderness as you when it came to Reagan. Even as I was inexorably pulling away from my leftist roots in the 1980s, I just couldn’t bring myself to like the man.

    Probably my first glimmering that I was wrong—very wrong—about him was the thrill I felt when he landed the Marines in Grenada in 1983. It was the first time I’d ever seen the U.S. bitch slap the Commies. Man, did that feel good!

    Years later I remember talking to one of my liberal friends about that. He was pouting about how unfair it was for a big power like the U.S. to pick on a bunch of small-time Marxist thugs on a faraway Carribean island. My friend is a true believer in socialism and barely disguises his contempt for American power. (Did I mention that he’s an atheist who has an atheist’s stereotypical daddy issues?)

    “Yes,” I said in reply, “kind of like when the forces of Utopia, aka the Red Army, took over small-time democrats in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lativa, Estonia and Lithuania, Aremenia and Georgia.”

    Went right over his head.

    Anyway, God bless Ronald Reagan. I’m only sorry I never came to say that while he was president.

  • Mike Devx

    Looking at the responses above, we’ve expressed the following reasons for our choices for President of the United States :

    – is already known quantity (no unpleasant surprises)
    – has succeeded against our enemies
    – will speak truth clearly (calls a terrorist a terrorist)
    – can handle washington d.c. politics (and the media)
    – has enough experience and is not too young

    There are likely other qualifications as well. One of us said he was a Romney guy but didn’t say why. Perhaps experience in the business sector? Or another reason?

    Are there other reasons beyond these five that we haven’t listed yet?
    One of my biggest would be:

    – can explain all of conservatism with enthusiasm and clarity and facts

    Which would be the most important in your list? How would you list them from most important to least, in terms of how you’d choose your President?

  • Gringo

    I never voted for Reagan. As I had gotten gassed in anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in Berkeley while Reagan was governor, I did not have an inherent pro-Reagan bias.

    My being laid off from my oil services job was related to a decision Reagan made to support the UK over Argentina in the Falklands War. I had been slated to go back to Argentina. Had Reagan remained neutral, it is quite possible the war would have been settled by negotiations, with no subsequent UK victory and subsequent fall of the Argentine peso- which is what eliminated my job. Nonetheless, I supported Reagan’s decision, as I had no love for the junta, having previously worked in Argentina.

    Reagan’s Evil Empire remark helped change my opinion of him. I liked how he called a spade a spade.

    I also liked Reagan’s support of the Contras. I had worked in countries during and after left wing guerrilla activity ( in 1981 I worked in a war zone in Guatemala), and discovered that the average Joses did not universally love the lefties, contrary to what the affluent lefties in the West claimed. Those who wanted “peace” in Central America ignored several issues. 1) The Sandinistas were hard-core commies who back in 1980 had lined up with the USSR on Afghanistan. None of the “liberals” ever brought that up. 2) Carter and Reagan had both told the Sandinistas to lay off supporting the FMLN in El Salvador. The Sandinistas got what they paid for. I greatly respect Reagan for not backing down to the Sandinistas. ( Shirley Christian’s book, Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family, gives a good summary.)

    Interesting that Reagan was formerly a liberal, which also describes Book and a substantial number of those who comment here. (I prefer the term “post-Liberal.”)

  • Oldflyer

    Mike Devx, I said Romney was my man. I guess the primary reason was demonstrated competence.

    I also would probably put that as the number 1 attribute. Either that or moral courage, which is pretty hard to asses in advance. I would rate principles pretty highly, and there may be some overlap with that.

    Issues are certainly important. But this is an area where I would be less doctrinaire if other criteria were met. How much less? I am not sure; nor am I sure which issues I would be willing to give on. That would depend on the rest of the package, I suppose.

    Back to Reagan. I was not pleased about Grenada at the time. I had a slight “wag the dog” feeling about that episode since it followed his terrible failure in Beirut. Reagan was great in many ways, but as far as I am concerned his memory will be forever stained by the act of putting the Marines into Beirut with no specific purpose; then pulling out after the slaughter with barely a whimper. Just as sure as the devil that transmitted to the evil ones that we could be cowed. Someone should have paid a terrible price for killing those U.S. Marines. I know not many people agree with me.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Not many Leftists agree with you. But we’re not Leftists. We’re just quiet. Quiet warmongers.
    One of the fundamental problems with the election of Democrats Is Not that we dislike losing, although we do dislike it, nor is it that we believe the loss is permanent, although that is also true.

    No, the fundamental problem with the election of Democrats is that all these useful idiots and dupes of the Democrats, who vote Democrat all the time because they “believe”, will never get a chance to atone for their mistakes if the Democrats pass a certain point of no return.

    Government bureaucracies are permanent. And they do grow ever larger and larger. But as I see here, people can change their minds from their youth and they can learn wisdom on top of preconceptions. But the Democrats will snuff all that out like a drowned kitten. Or a drowned date on one night over a watery grave. No wonder they didn’t like Bush’s captaincy of the ship sailing on and staying the course. They prefer their own style since they could then throw anybody overboard when it becomes necessary. Or just leave them to drown when convenient.

    Human beings must make mistakes, they must learn from them, and in the process gain wisdom and maturity. The Left will take all of that from us. We will never grow up. We will never be able to atone for our mistakes. Just as the Left made sure of it for the Vietnamese and tried once again with the Iraqis and Afghans.