[cripplecreek]

Where does he stand on abortion? Immigration? Taxes?

[Sacajaweau]

Don’t think he’d even consider it.

[Brilliant]

I would give him strong consideration.

[Non-Sequitur]

The $64k question is, what does it take to convince him to lead the nation. Any thoughts?

And idea of his political leanings would be nice.

[Maine Mariner]

I always though a Petraeus/Palin ticket has a nice ring to it.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

His military record makes me hopeful; a liberal would not have lasted this long in the military.

However, that he is currently and willingly serving an illegal commander in chief makes me a little uncomfortable. I would be happier if he were to address the issue in the way that Major Stefan Cook and Captain Connie Rhodes have; for now, these are the only two officers in our military that have my full respect for standing up to the Kenyan in Chief.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

There is one towering person- physically, intellectually, and militarily who would make the ideal and unbeatable Republican candidate for US President in 2012.

Here's what I know about Petraeus: he came up with and executed a brilliant military strategy in Iraq. He's obviously a gifted general. We don't know anything about his views on government power, government spending, US foreign policy, economic policy, energy policy or anything else.

And you don't know if he found Conan's gag about punching a nun in the face funny.

[bigbob]

No.

[bwc2221]

Do we know where he stands on anything? I have heard, although not verified, that he is pretty moderate.

Generals have made great Presidents (Washington), mediocre Presidents (Eisenhower) and God-awful Presidents (Grant).

Promoting someone just because he has been a successful general is IMHO the height of folly.

[ansel12]

Why not look into it a little bit yourself before you post a vanity with zero information or explanation.

[jz638]

I’d be firmly behind a “Draft David” effort, regardless of his political party affiliation.

[libh8er]

No No No. Military men lose. It's been proved over and over again. (But then against the Maasai I think anybody would win.)

[cubreporter]

Why not? Let him put his issues out there for all of us to see. Lord knows we don’t have anyone else.

[nomoremods]

No thanks. He calls himself a Rockefeller Republican and that’s all I need to know about his leanings.

From the article linked below:

“Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire—he once described himself to a friend as a northeastern Republican, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller—but he said that around 2002, after he became a two-star general, he stopped voting.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll#ixzz0cG9wwtbj

[Rockingham]

Former military leaders rarely have strong, well-considered views on domestic issues, except for a tendency to favor federal authority. As a result, like Eisenhower, they usually end up being strong on national security but moderate on domestic issues.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Brilliant general that he is, Petraeus is a low key, low charisma type of guy, and I don't know why people think 1) that he could somehow put together a winning national campaign against Obama when he has no political network and has never run for anything in his life because of his Army career, and 2) why he would even want to run.

Bottom-line--nonstarter.

[Salman]

This one is even sillier than the speculation about McCain/Lieberman.

[9YearLurker]

He who has reportedly described himself as a “Rockefeller Republican?” No thanks, we already dodged a bullet with Colin Powell.

[Sybeck1]

I like Ike!