His name is being floated as a top pick for the Secretary of State position, yet, he has little or no interest in politics, apparently.
I’m willing to go out on a limb and say retired General David Petraeus may have voted, but like many, could not vote for the supposed “lesser” of two evils, so he didn’t. That’s not how his statements come across, however.
“I don’t vote, so that’s an easy answer,” Petraeus told ABC News when asked if he backed President-elect Trump in his campaign against defeated Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
“I also did not support him nor did I oppose him. Nor did I support or oppose any other candidate,” said the former CIA director.
“I’ve truly tried to be apolitical, nonpolitical,” Petraeus added.
The former CIA director met with Trump last week, in a meeting that both described in positive terms.
Whether he gets the nod, or not, it raises questions that the man who would be the nation’s top diplomat considers himself “apolitical.”
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I guess it depends on how you view the duties of the Secretary of State – or any government position, for that matter.
Voting may not be a measure of someone’s competence in government work, but I’d like to believe that those in these positions have an active interest in our electoral process.
I propose the same kind of Civics test given to legal immigrants be given to everyone running for public office or who may be appointed to a cabinet position. It may not be the perfect tool, but it should give us a look at how much interest each candidate or appointee has invested in the job.