Pun Involving the Word "General"

Via Dave Weigel my "I can't believe this is real" website of the day -- One Last Mission.org, dedicated to launching a Draft General Peter Pace movement. Draft him for what? To lose to Mark Warner in the Virginia senate race next fall, of course. What about the fact that he's shown no inclination to run? Well, "It is, however, your reluctance to serve that suggests to us that you must serve." Indeed.

Dave points out that there's a growing trend here as we've also seen conservatives pushing Tommy Franks and David Petraeus as political candidates.

Now of course there's a long tradition of generals (but not, I think, admirals) entering politics in the United States, starting with George Washington. Contemporary conservatives, however, seem to be misunderstanding the tradition in crucial respects. The idea, normally, is to nominate flag officers who are associated with noteworthy victories -- from Andrew Jackson to Wesley Clark -- or else for a junior officer who showed noteworthy courage in battle (John Kerry, John Kennedy) to run for a lower office. Neither Franks, nor Petraeus, nor Pace is actually popular, probably because insofar as anyone knows who these guys are it's from their association with a giant unpopular fiasco in Iraq. What the Republicans need to do is find candidates who can distance themselves from this war, not embrace it more closely.

Comments

What the Republicans need to do is find candidates who can distance themselves from this war, not embrace it more closely.

This strategy is just fine, from my point of view.

Posted by Dan | October 15, 2007 3:33 PM

Is the GOP paying you to provide sane advice? If so, why do you expect us to read it?

Posted by gregor | October 15, 2007 3:34 PM

"It is, however, your reluctance to serve that suggests to us that you must serve."

Didn't the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy have something to say about this?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 15, 2007 3:36 PM

The Rethuglicans are probably pining for the days of Eisenhower, or Dugout Doug. The funny thing about the Rethugs back then is that they didn't pay attention to how he ruled over Japan as CPA type after the war. At least we know one thing about a possible Tommy Franks WH. Doug Feith wouldn't be anywhere near the WH or Pentagon, so it would be one less crazed neo-con in Washington.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 15, 2007 3:38 PM

What the Republicans need to do is find candidates who can distance themselves from this war, not embrace it more closely.

Actually I think they need to keep doing the bang-up job they're currently doing, but then I'm interested in seeing GOP candidates continue to lose elections.

Posted by Mike T | October 15, 2007 3:40 PM

(but not, I think, admirals)

It wasn't a successful candicacy, but there was the George Dewey groundswell.

The linked wikipedia page doesn't really do justice to the man's megalomania and the comedy that followed after his overwhelming victory at the battle of Manila Bay. I remember a good account in Karnow's history of the American occupation of the Philippines, in particular the fate of his planned victory arch in New York.

Posted by Warren Terra | October 15, 2007 3:42 PM

Whatever you say, concern troll! Real Republicans know that the key to electoral success in '08 is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and the glorious victory we will achieve there any day now.

Posted by Mitch | October 15, 2007 3:53 PM

I think what's happening is that Republicans are becoming increasingly convinced that when the general election rolls around, things in Iraq will be dramatically improved. (based on recent news reports that indicate things may be improving). And so they want to position these people now to take advantage of what they're expecting to be an improved Iraq. Especially because if Iraq does improve, it's going to weaken the Democrats political chances quite considerably.

Of course personally I think the Republicans are being too optimistic at this point. Things may be improving in Iraq, but we still see little signs of political reconcilation on the national level. And events are fluid. A month and a half of sharp drops in violence does not a trend make.

Posted by Jeff | October 15, 2007 3:54 PM

Retired Admiral Joe Sestak is a congressman from Pennsylvania.

Posted by Peter | October 15, 2007 3:59 PM

In terms of schadenfreude, what's lovely about this is how deeply apparent it is that Republican activists are responding to the absence of any worthwhile leaders by turning over every available stone and, until they actually get to know they guy, projecting their hopes onto candidates that no one really knows about, their qualifications being resolvable down to being a republican and not having a record that demonstrably contradicts their fervent hopes. I don't know the record all that well, but I'd guess that Peter Pace has a few quotes in newspapers and maybe some testimony or reportage in front of congress, but that nobody really knows anything about him. Is he a social conservative? What's his religion? Is he a good supply sider? Who knows? It all smacks of desperation and infantile notions about what constitutes a leader.

Also interesting is the fact that the appeal to republicans of the most recent candidates in this category could be broken down as follows:

Fred Thompson: He seemed cool on TV.
Peter Pace: He's an army guy who hasn't talked about what a mess the Iraq war is and who doesn't like gay people.

Posted by MrTimbo | October 15, 2007 4:00 PM

Oh, and Sestak is a Democrat.

Posted by Peter | October 15, 2007 4:06 PM

IIRC the only loser general to be nominated for high office was McClellan.

Posted by Bloix | October 15, 2007 4:17 PM

"IIRC the only loser general to be nominated for high office was McClellan."

Winfield Scott, not to mention Winfield Scott Hancock. Or do mean, "general who lost battles", as opposed to "general who lost elections" when you say, "loser general"? McC. did not run as a "loser general" in that sense, but rather claimed to have been the victor of Antietam, and the hero of the 7 Days, where his troops held out against hugely unfavorable odds (or so he claimed). McC.'s record looked a lot better if you accepted his assumptions regarding the size of the southern armies.

Posted by rea | October 15, 2007 4:31 PM

Lincoln confirms MY's basic point, however:

"I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."--Linxcln to Gen. Joseph Hooker, Jan. 26, 1863.

Posted by rea | October 15, 2007 4:36 PM

"General Pace, or General Lose the Race?"

Posted by old guy | October 15, 2007 4:55 PM

Dewey may not have a triumphal arch in New York, but he's got a hell of a victory column in San Francisco.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | October 15, 2007 5:37 PM

AFAICT, no future President has held a naval rank higher than Lt Commander (both Nixon and Ford). Carter is the only Annapolis graduate to reach the White House.

Posted by Thlayli | October 15, 2007 5:39 PM

So why are the Republicans trying to draft generals to run, then? I think it's because they disagree with you about this part.

Neither Franks, nor Petraeus, nor Pace is actually popular, probably because insofar as anyone knows who these guys are it's from their association with a giant unpopular fiasco in Iraq. What the Republicans need to do is find candidates who can distance themselves from this war, not embrace it more closely.

Most people who still self-identify as Republicans seem to approve of the war, or only disagree to the extent that they feel it should be more barbaric. And so do their circle of friends. Some of them probably don't know that their viewpoint is in the minority, and those who do follow polls probably either mistrust them as being liberally biased (the media and the scientific establishment are, right?), or feel that people have been misled into opposing the war and could be shown the light relatively easily by a decent PR campaign.

As many other people have also said, I approve of this, at least in the short term.

Posted by Cyrus | October 15, 2007 5:40 PM

"IIRC the only loser general to be nominated for high office was McClellan."

It's (obviously) not an American president, and it's a possible Godwin's law violation, but Von Hindenburg?

Pervez Musharraf also comes to mind as a General who became a (foreign) President (even was elected, eventually, sorta) after overseeing a military provocation and the subsequent fruitless (and pointless) low-scale war.

P.S. On the continuing naval subthread, there was one rear admiral who got about a nomination, of sorts, and 20% of the vote in the general, not twenty years ago: James Stockdale. I'm cheating, a bit, because it was a veep slot, not the top one, the 'nomination' was decidedly not arrived at through any recognizeable procedure, and after his disastrous debate performance I can't think many people voted for Stockdale (not that I think many people actually wanted to elect Perot).

Posted by Warren Terra | October 15, 2007 6:30 PM

Christ, what's next, making everyone wear glasses in their campaigns? "You wouldn't hit (politically) a guy wearing glasses, would you? Huh? Huh?!?"

Note to any Republicans reading this: Actually, running generals against Democrats may well work for you, because at least half of the Congressional Democratic caucus can't figure out how to call BS on a general who lets himself be used as a political tool.

Posted by Chris | October 15, 2007 6:50 PM

Ahem...Peter Pace is a MARINE. That's a fairly important distinction not only if you happen to be a marine (I'm not) but because the 'conventional wisdom' is that marines had a kind of headstart on counter-insurgency.

And if anyone thinks JohnMcCain can be a grouchy old bastard, wait 'til we have a chance to get to know Tommy Franks a little better. John can't even stand in Tommy's shadow when it comes to temper.

Posted by JohnMcC | October 15, 2007 6:51 PM

Well, speaking of military guys noted for dyspepia and choler while running for national office....Curtis LeMay!!! He even made 'The Guv'nah' (GeoWallace) seem kinda moderate!!!

Posted by JohnMcC | October 15, 2007 6:55 PM

Geez, what is it with plainly crazy Generals and Admirals as running mates on fairly successful third-party tickets? I mentioned Stockdale, above, and JohnMcC now mentions LeMay (I was aware of him as the bomb-happy fruitcase satirized in Dr. Strangelove and no more flatteringly portrayed in mainstream histories of the Kennedy era; I hadn't known he'd run with Wallace).

Extrapolating, if Nader had found some crazy General to run with him in 2000, Dubya wouldn't have had to steal the election!

P.S. I check so you don't have to: other recent high-profile third-party runs (Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, John Anderson) had civilians as running mates. Mostly governors.

Posted by Warren Terra | October 15, 2007 7:26 PM

Let's not forget that Gen Westmoreland, coming off his triumph in Vietnam, lost the 1974 Republican nomination for governor in his native South Carolina.

Posted by Walsh | October 16, 2007 5:37 PM