Thanks for your answer. I like him as a person, but I would need to know something about his views to support him. unfortunately, I think you are also correct that he would bring a lot of criticism about the wars into play.. even though it's bullshit to pin it on him, imo. As for the neo-con line, I'm unaware if it even has a definition since I've seen it used in somewhat contradictory context. What is neo-conservatism according to you and are you implying that I am a neo con? Also, who is the top choice for you guys at the moment and why?
Sounds a whole lot like the situation surrounding Ike back in the 50's. Everyone knew about his military career and he was popular for his strategic skill on both sides of the isle. Completely kept his political views out of it to the point where the Dems were trying to get him to run on their ticket. It wasn't until he actually launched his campaign that people found out what his views were. Looking back he is widely considered one of the top 10 presidents. Balanced budgets, enhanced national infrastructure, the ending of failing war, desegregation of the military, etc... all from a man who never ran for any other office and only served as a five star general and commander of the allied forces. Judging by those standards it certainly could be worse. Ironically, of all the presidents he was also the one most famous for denouncing the developing military industrial complex. Hardly the warmongering former military man that everyone assumes would be the case if a former general were to become president.
You're right. The term "neo con" gets thrown around loosely. I think it was originally used to describe a group of liberal, largely jewish intellectuals who became disinchanted with the democrats' weak-kneed attitude toward the Soviet Union. Back then, in the 1970's, repression of Soviet jewish dissenters was a big issue. The neo-cons supported Reagan and added impressive intellectual credentials to his campaign and administration. Probably the best known was Irving Kristol, father of the editor of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the neo-cons' attention shifted to the middle east, where concern for Israel was a paramount value. Their bitter enemy was Pat Buchanan, who accused them of fomenting the first Iraq war. In the Bush 43 administration, they were the big advocates of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, particularly the former. Again, one of their foremost critics was Pat Buchanan. They also regard Ron Paul as a dangerous and misguided foe. I use the term today to describe people who support the Bush foreign policy doctrines of preemptive war and belief that democracy is preferable to authoritarian regimes in unstable middle eastern countries. Romney seems to be largely in their camp. I wasn't intending to characterize you as a neo-con. I don't really know what your views are. I don't think admiring Gen. Petraeus necessarily makes one a neo con. I don't even know if he is one, but he has been executing a neo con policy.
PiggyBank, I think the front runners are Rubio and Christie. Sen. Portman of Ohio is certainly up there, with Gov. McDonnell of Virginia a real darkhorse. Paul Ryan's name gets thrown out there a lot too, but I see him as problematic. Pick him and the race becomes a referendum on his tax and medicare plans, not on Obama, which should be the goal. I would be OK with any of them I suppose. Of course, my personal favorite would be Michelle Bachmann, but that's not happening. I have to admit, I would love to see Christie on the campaign trail and debates, just for the sheer entertainment value.
Seriously, you think Michelle Bachmann gives them a better chance than Petraeus? If you are going to go that route you might as well put Sarah Palin in again.