Peter Pace For Virginia Senate?
By Mason Conservative Posted in Archived — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
An interesting wrinkle has appeared in Virignia, where the name of former Joint Cheif's Chairman Peter Pace is being thrown around for a bid for the US Senate. The National Review had it first:
The articulate and personable four-star would be a novice politician wise in the ways of Washington. As a veteran of the Pentagon’s senior ranks, he would have a commanding advantage over all other candidates on national-security issues. Unlike other senior military leaders, the Catholic General Pace has been outspoken about his conservative beliefs on social issues. In defending the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he has forthrightly explained that he believes homosexual conduct to be “immoral” behavior that the military shouldn’t condone. Adultery, too, should not be tolerated in the military’s ranks, he has said.
When General Pace was informed that he wouldn’t be re-nominated to another term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he refused to retire voluntarily. Why? A soldier in Baghdad “should not think ever that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield,” Pace explained. Only when it became public knowledge that he had been denied another term did he submit his retirement papers.
Pace has also explained that his experiences in Vietnam guided his decision about whether to retire voluntarily. Recalling the Marines who followed him onto the battlefield and lost their lives, he said, “I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed. I need to be told that I’m done. I’ve been told that I’m done.”
The Washington Post Virignia blog then picked up the thought. There is now a Draft Peter Pace blog, and a Facebook page as well. Not sure wheere I come down on this. I'm a Tom Davis supporter right now, but its hard. Some of his votes are easier to take so long as he represents a majority Democrat distirct, I get that. But Peter Pace would be formidable, and very hard to attack. Could he be the Republican Jim Webb, a veteran who comes out of knowhere to defeat the most popular member of the opposition party?
Its a lot harder to smear an honorable man in uniform then the left thought it was. Democrats would have a hard time doing to Peter Pace what they did to George Allen.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
and we wouldn't need to recruit Cantor so he could angle to be Speaker soon.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'
Ronald Reagan
Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts.
Edward R. Murrow
Cantor's star in the House is on the rise big-time. And he is TOTALLY our kind of people.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
He sounds like a good candidate. n/t.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Peter Pace has four things working against him:
1. He is associated with the postwar debacle in Iraq and the unpopular Bush Administration. More importantly, he is associated with Rumsfeld's tenure.
2. His comments regarding the morality of homosexuality will dog him all the way, just as Allen's rhetorical flops cost the Republicans the Senate in 2006.
3. He is running against Mark Warner, who is a great politican and will win this election unless something drastic occurs.
While I would love for the Republicans to hold this seat, but they won't if Mark Warner runs. Davis will put up a fight, and likely force Warner to behave more moderately in the Senate than Pace, who has no chance in hell of winning in this political climate.
A typical R politician has no chance of winning against Warner. The opportunity arises in putting up a principled conservative non-politician with excellent credentials.
The political climate has already started to shift and will be very different in Fall 2008. Principled conservatism has a good shot in Virginia in a year with Hillary likely as the face of the Dems. (Of course, if Rudy is our face, then we might not have a great contrast that will be in our favor...)
Warner is formidable, but of all possible R names floated, Pace is the strongest by far.
His comments won't harm him unless he has no skills to state his position. Don't think that is a problem.
He is not going to harmed by his service record.
You're just a bit too pessimistic...
Remember this fact . . . as bad as George Allen did, if he had recieved ONE more percent in Northern VA (Prince William, Fairax, Loudoun, Arlington), he would have won by 55,000 votes! So despite our loses, they have still been pretty close and we aren't that far away . . .
Tom Davis can beat Mark Warner becasue of his support in Northern Virignia. Peter Pace can beat Mark Warner through all the Republican veterans that live in Virginia that backed Webb in federal NOVA and in Hampton Roads/Newport News.
Don't think that Mark Warner is unbeatable, becasue that is false. Virginians generally always give their governor's high marks because they aren't put in the context of running for reelection (VA gives its govs only one term).
It took every dirty trick, every slime, and every made-up racial slur to bring George Allen down, and he STILL almost won.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
As a Northern Virginian, perhaps I am being a little pessimistic regarding the Republican's chances statewide. The Democratic "wave" will only subside in 2008, and hopefully a Hillary candidacy will bring out all the Virginia conservatives who twice denied her husband their state's electoral votes.
Pace is a fine solider who honorably served his country, but the general is a political novice who has never ran a campaign or held elective office. I worry Pace's political naivety, as displayed in the disastorus interview with the Chicago Tribune which contributed to Gates' decision not to recommend renominating him for another two years, could hurt us again.
George Allen's oratorical prattfalls turned the 2006 race from a cakewalk to a nail-biter. When the election was that close, any number of factors could have shifted the balance. I believe Bush's decision not to fire Rumsfeld prior to the election brought many people who were on the fence into Webb's camp to protest the way the war was being handled. Pace is associated with the Rumsfeld strategy, and a Mark Warner campaign would jump at the chance to campaign against Bush's conduct of the war.
If shifting one percent of the votes in Northern Virginia is key to our success, then why is Davis a poor choice? He has consistently carried Fairfax County with over 55%. Is anyone who voted for George Allen not going to cast their ballot for Davis? Are they going to stay home and allow Hillary Clinton to capture the White House? Trading Davis for John Warner is a wash, but the former, as some writers on this site have noted, is not Chuck Hagel.
Lets not underestimate Mark Warner's political skills. As a relative unknown, he almost beat John Warner in 1996. The latter had issues with his base just like Davis. Pace would likley rally the base better than Davis, but do they need to be rallied against Hillary? Would conservatives stay home like they did in 1996 if Giuliani is the nominee? In this scenario, Pace could bring voters to our ranks who otherwise wouldn't show up, but would he alienate just as many, if not more, with his association with the Iraq War?
The Party needs to hold this seat. Veterans who rallied behind Webb might return to our ranks with Davis running against Warner, especially if good news from the war continues to return. Because he hails from a crucial region of the state, has a competant record as a representative, and is not a polarizing figure, is the best chance to defeat the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The marriage amendment passed with a large majority in the last election. This suggests that your second point is false.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Balfour
I think you have it totally wrong on your second point about homosexuality.
Pace is on the record for where he stands, and if he stands strong on his principles a lot of folks who agree with his principles will vote for him. Also as a retired 4 star general, you will find it very hard to get much in the way of "dirt" on him as you don't make it to that rank without being squeaky clean.
On the linkage to the unpopular war, yes and no. Again, sticking to the line of being in command of the US armed forces, carrying out the orders he was given in an excellent manner, no problem. Pace can also point out having been there where Rummy and the President may have made mistakes in the early days of the war, but it was his job to carry out orders, not make policy. You might be able to argue that as CJCS he could have argued for a strategy change early on, but at some point you salute smartly and carry out the mission you have been assigned.
I think he would be an excellent canidate!
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
1. He is associated with the postwar debacle in Iraq and the unpopular Bush Administration. More importantly, he is associated with Rumsfeld's tenure.
Maybe, maybe not. That's difficult to tell. It's a double-edged sword, I grant you that, but I don't think you can say for sure it would hurt him.
2. His comments regarding the morality of homosexuality will dog him all the way, just as Allen's rhetorical flops cost the Republicans the Senate in 2006.
Wrong. It would cost him votes from people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. This might hurt him in other states, but I doubt it would in Virginia. In Virginia, they still realize there is a world of difference between the color of your skin and your personal behavior.
If he had said that he 'hated' gays, or refused to work with gays, that would be totally different. But he didn't say that. He said he was raised to believe it's immoral. Regardless how much the left wants to yell, there is still a huge chunk of America who agrees that homosexual acts are less then moral behavior. They don't want to push their morality on others, and they don't want people abused just because of their private behavior, even if they do consider it a moral failing, but that doesn't mean they will hold it against someone who believes it to be a moral failing.
3. He is running against Mark Warner, who is a great politican and will win this election unless something drastic occurs.
You might be right, but that's kind of the neat thing. Gilmore would be such a huge disaster he could drag others down with him, and Davis is going to be giving up a very difficult house seat to run. It would be better for Pace to run, since he risks nothing, and Davis to keep his house seat.
“I am telling people loosen your ties, fire up the coffee pots, get ready for the weekend, ... We've got a lot of work to do.”
- John Bolton
Phenomenal speech and presence. I came away from that speech thinking that it is Pace's duty to continue to be an advocate for what he believes is right and run for Senate.
Sounds like a great idea to me, but has he indicated any interest, or even that he is aware that the idea is floating around?
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
Maybe not the SecDef role, but something in the national security area would seem to be appropriate.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- imwithfred --
It was my pleasure and priviledge to serve and travel with General Pace during his last year as CJCS. He is a moral man of character, integrity and compassion.
His caring and concern for the men and women who are fighting our war are evident to all who interact with him. I know that I will forever compare all officers in my future with General Pace. He is the gold-medal standard of leadership.
I believe his integrity, courage, humility and compassion would make him an excellent senator (or president!) but I’m not sure I would wish liberal muckraking and mudslinging on anyone I respect and care for.
I find it incredibly difficult to see him beating Warner, but he's got two things going for him: his candidacy would not put another Republican seat in any more danger than it's already in, and unlike the other two potential candidates, he seems like a solid conservative.
www.republicansenate.org