Wait something's seriously wrong with this

David Frum wrote this in a recent column:

I heard Jeff Greenfield say on CNN today that every general to seek the presidency since Andrew Jackson has been a Republican. That’s not quite right: Think of Lewis Cass (the Democratic nominee for president in 1848) or George McClellan (Democratic nominee 1864) or Winfield Scott Hancock (Democratic nominee, 1880). What Greenfield probably meant to say was that all the successful generals were Republicans. Indeed so, and for good reasons – the reasons Wesley Clark will drill home in ’04 one more time.

Ignoring the difference between modern Republicans and 19th century Republicans, TAPPED noticed this little historical flaw:

Frum's not as wrong about this as Greenfield, but he's still wrong. Franklin Pierce attained the rank of Brigadier General during the war with Mexico before capturing the Democratic nomination -- and the White House -- in the election of 1852.[Emphasis theirs]

To his credit, Frum corrected his mistake, but in doing so, he wrote this:

I made one slip in yesterday's column and one true error. Talking about the political chances of generals, I said that all the successful generals since Andrew Jackson (I meant politically successful by the way not militarily successful - I know that Winfield Scott Hancock was a fine general) had been Republicans. I should have said had been "non-Democrats": William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor were anti-Jacksonians, but they were Whigs, not Republicans.

The error was that even if I'd phrased the point correctly, I would have overlooked the exception to the rule: Franklin Pierce, who served as a brigadier-general in the Mexican War.

Still, the larger point holds: There's something about military backgrounds and Democratic affiliation that has not until now mixed well.[Emphasis mine]

Excuse me? Military backgrounds and Democratic affiliation has not mixed well? What about John Kennedy - a Democrat who notably served in the Pacific theater in World War II. He seemed to do just fine on the political stage.

Sure, Kennedy wasn't a General, but we certainly haven't had a General rise to the office of President since Eisenhower, and before Eisenhower, I can't think of a single former General President since Grant, and certainly there were none others in the 20th Century.

So, in other words, of the one Generals to become President in the last 110 years or so, all have been Republican. A more damning fact against the candidacy of Wesley Clark will be hard to find.

[Updated to add link to Frum's correction]