October 19, 2008

"He is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage" -- Colin Powell endorses Obama.

On "Meet the Press. "Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge... He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:
Since when did “intellectual curiosity” become a big selling point for Commander-in-Chief, anyway?

Oh yeah, that’s right, ever since eight years of teh Most Stoopedisht Pretzledent in teh Historectomy of teh Universed Worzlzd EVVVAAARRR1!!!

Way to sell it, Colin baby!

158 comments:

George said...

oh good grief-

Greybeard said...

Isn't this the idiot whose judgement was so bad he helped get us involved in this illegal, immoral, U.S. bankrupting war?
Why should I care about his opinion now?

AprilApple said...

Obama isn't the president.

Bissage said...

Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama?

Surely this means the McCain/Palin ticket has all but lost the African-American vote.

The Republicans are doomed.

Meade said...

This could just about tip the entire election. My god! Who will be next to endorse Obama? Oprah?

former law student said...

Amazing that so many moderate Republicans are turning hard-core leftist this year. (Why else support "the most liberal Senator"?)

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Well, time for me to go round up the comrades.

ron st.amant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
montana urban legend said...

No greybeard, that was Bush's judgment. He and Cheney just thought they could get the diplomatic cover they sought by getting Powell to shill for it. But Powell's seen the light since then.

Chris Wren said...

"amazing that so many moderate Republicans are turning hard-core leftist this year."

Yeah, that's why your President has announced his willingness to consider "global financial governance".

http://www.reuters.com/article/euDealsNews/idUSTRE49G5K720081017

Seriously, how is Obama going to be any further Left than the administration you have right at this moment?

Bissage said...

Since when did “intellectual curiosity” become a big selling point for Commander-in-Chief, anyway?

Oh yeah, that’s right, ever since eight years of teh Most Stoopedisht Pretzledent in teh Historectomy of teh Universed Worzlzd EVVVAAARRR1!!!

Way to sell it, Colin baby!

ron st.amant said...

Sorry I should have written:

Now the Right attacks General Powell...how sad I am for them.

Rose said...

No. We just wonder what happened to him? What they have on him. Just how powerful is the Chicago Soros machine?

Palladian said...

Um. Duh.

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

Host with the Most said...

And another American military man sells out his fellow soldiers for personal glory. Ann must be very happy.

Mark this page and visit it in two years: the American military will be weaker and more demoralized under an Obama administration.

Guaranteed.

AJ Lynch said...

So far in his life, Obama has transformed what and how?

Placed blinders on the MSM?
Gotten young voters to blindly follow en masse?
Convinced SNL that BUSH is evil, McCain is angry and Palin is racist and stupid?
Spun a tale that his thin resume is not the same as Palin's thicker resume?

Quayle said...

I think it is safe to say that after thousands of years, there is no such thing as a new generation coming into political leadership.

Every trick has been tried before. There is nothing new under the sun in politics. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, or British have all been here before.

Now, in those historical frameworks, Obama marks the return of the rhetoritician, which usually marks the advent of the worst kind of government. The government that talks a good game and is totally removed from the hard tasks of governing.

Not to condemn, but to observe: the people are starving for a miracle to solve the unsettled feeling and problems that their own lax living is causing. This is a personal problem we face, not a social problem.

Much as it would be nice, it will be sad to eventually see that even Obama won’t be able to bring the miracle the people are hungering for.

ElcubanitoKC said...

He has met what standard and how? By being the chairman and funneling 150 million into the failed CAC?

These are fun times to be alive. Cognitive dissonance is the new cool place to be, and just by being "intellectually curious" and "cool handed" one is automatically an exceptional figure.

I should be president then. I have the same experience, cool disposition and perhaps even deeper intellectual curiosity (thirst for knowledge if you would allow and behold my metaphor) than The One (PBUH).

I am also attractive, and carry the same "sexual prowess" label as He (PBUH) does. I am Cuban, you know. So, I should definitely carry the vote of the Hispanic community, the blacks and all the unsatisfied, frustrated and horny white women plus all the penis envious mildly retarded overweight "starving artists" just like He (PBUH) does.

I should give this some serious consideration.

I'm off to Mass.

Good morning all.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

Hmmm. I'm beginning to sense a trend!

ricpic said...

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

Not white racial bonds...unfortunately.

Palladian said...

"He is a transformational figure..."

For anyone who has read Kafka's "Metamorphosis", transformation is not always a good thing.

"...he is a new generation..."

Me like shiny new things! Shiny new must be good!

"...coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage"

People at the Gaiety Theater in New York came onto an American stage. That doesn't mean I want them to be President. Still, I'm glad Powell admits that Obama's an actor with all that stage imagery.

"Obama displayed a steadiness..."

He wobbles but he won't fall down!

"...an intellectual curiosity..."

So what?

"...a depth of knowledge..."

I keep hearing this claim. Exactly where is the evidence for the "depth" of Obama's knowledge? I can believe that he has a breadth of knowledge, that he knows a little about a lot of things, but what exactly does he know deeply?

"He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

He has? Wow, he's so amazing that he's already been a successful president and he hasn't been elected yet!

Of course, the "election" is a mere formality.

Thanks for everything, Colin! You've been swell! Have fun driving those old Volvos! And pray Obama doesn't take them away from you for failing emissions tests.

Darcy said...

Quayle said:
Now, in those historical frameworks, Obama marks the return of the rhetoritician, which usually marks the advent of the worst kind of government. The government that talks a good game and is totally removed from the hard tasks of governing.

Thank you. We've got one of these rhetoricians running Michigan right now, and it is exactly the disaster you speak of.

EKC for President!

AJ Lynch said...

It's funny to see all these old old Beltway elites claiming that they too see Obama as a transformational figure. Old dudes like Powell, Broder, Wolf Blitzer, Matthews, etc.

McCain should proclaim when he is elcted he will hold weekly BLOGGERS ONLY NEWS conferences. He should tell the American people he will bypass his "old base" in the MSM.

Palladian said...

"Not white racial bonds...unfortunately."

Remember comrade, white people have no race!

Nichevo said...

"Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge...

Well, okay, I suppose Gen. Powell is entitled to his own opinions...


He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

But not his own facts. How could he possibly justify this remark? What standard would that be? How do you meet it BEFORE becoming President? Sen. Obama hasn't been the president of a hamburger stand. Is Powell confused and lauding Pres. Bush by mistake?

I can't see it making much difference in the election, however. Even among blacks Powell is probably neutralized by all the brickbats thrown at him during his Republican service.

I don't have to come up with any criticisms or epithets for the general, if I want them; this work has been long done by the Left (though he may be due for some of that "strange new respect" that political defectors (to the Left) get.

For instance, I could cite the absurd but somehow endearing columns of Jimmy Breslin, who among other things felt the need to state that Powell's family in the Bronx "hit the number" (won an illegal lottery) which funded their rise into the middle class. It didn't make sense to me then (Breslin IMHO should have stuck to Tales of Un Occhio) and doesn't now but may to others. He had other more commonplace digs as well, and I could turn up a hundred others by a hundred authors if I chose.

Criticisms from the Right, aside from debating his job performance (we have him to thank for not going to Baghdad in '91, for instance), have noted his, shall we say, lukewarmth. He is neither hot nor cold and would be spit out of the mouths of voters were he to run himself, so of course he disdains the political fray himself, preferring to be appointed. A real political animal, as my friend's father who went to ROTC with him would testify; a go-along-to-get-along type, not to say chickenshit.

And the timing is curious, ha ha. What good does this do now? I suppose it lines him up for a seat at Obama's table. But whose vote would it sway? I have little doubt that a dozen retired generals of equal stature could be found to go the other way, if there were any pretense of his affecting military or right-wing voters. No, I think "chickenshit" is apt for waiting till now to come in.



Let me also ask two further questions:

1) Obama didn't exist before 2002. How long can Powell have known him? Whereas he must have known McCain all his career. And McCain craps bigger than Obama. How on the merits could Powell possibly mean this?

2) For whatever his flaws, Gen. Powell has a long record of achievement and accomplishment in a difficult system and in difficult times. How then can he compare Obama to himself, let alone be willing to accept that narrow-assed high-yaller puppy as his master? Powell also craps bigger than Obama. For better or worse, his littlest mistakes are bigger than Obama's greatest successes. Obama is a nothing. Every comparison shrieks it.

Palladian said...

I think sexual curiosity should be a qualification for the Presidency.

Palladian said...

"Obama is a nothing. Every comparison shrieks it."

IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

He's already been Chosen. There's nothing any of us can do to stop it now.

Get used to it.

Nichevo said...

Well them vote for me! I am mad to know the taste of Prof. Althouse's sugar walls. Doesn't that count?

Bob said...

"has met the standard" - my standard includes taking stands, making decisions, and actually implementing changes and policies. Voting "Present" and being a good speaker does not MAKE that case.

I guess now that race in US really does trump all. It was sad when it was whites holding down blacks. Now its sad watching blacks clubbing for each other.

Quayle said...

Cable TV, the internet, and the video game vendors are providing the circus, all that was missing in America's "transformation" was for Obama to come along and promise the free bread.

We're Rome all over again. But sadely, bread and circuses are routinely deplored as the cause of Rome's decline.

Palladian said...

Is Powell calling Obama a Transformer? What would Obama's Transformer name be, Optimus Sub-Prime?

Trevor Jackson said...

It's also sad to see so many here convinced that Obama has earned Powell's endorsement solely based on race.

Why didn't he do it months ago then? Powell's vote was McCain's to lose and by picking Palin and running an incoherent campaign--by Powell's definition--McCain lost that vote.

Personally, I was proud of Powell's criticism of the "he's a Muslim" whispers: He's not but what if he was? Why should that in and of itself be a disqualifying factor?

His endorsement matters little to me, but I can see it carrying a lot of weight with many people wondering just how "risky" Obama would be.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

BREAKING NEWS: Another conservative endorses Obama, and the "real" conservatives in the internet comments marginalize him by saying..."Who cares, he's black, too!"

So, by this standard, when Powell was supporting not one, but two white men named Bush, he was just a disingenuous Uncle Tom. Got it!

Darcy said...

Optimus Sub-Prime! That was brilliant.

jdeeripper said...

""He is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage" -- Colin Powell endorses Obama."

Another black male "leader" of Caribbean ancestry also sees Obama as transformational.

Obama will receive nearly 99% of the black vote. But White people, especially White women, will get him elected.

Palladian said...

"Why didn't he do it months ago then?"

Because he thought announcing now would offer more help to the Obama campaign, and so that Obama doesn't forget about him when he's picking cabinet officers.

Palladian said...

"So, by this standard, when Powell was supporting not one, but two white men named Bush, he was just a disingenuous Uncle Tom. Got it!"

You should get it, it's your side of the spectrum that started calling Powell an "Uncle Tom" (and worse, if you remember Harry Belafonte) in the first place.

But now he's YOUR BIG HERO! BECAUSE HE STUCK IT TO THE MAN!!!!11

jdeeripper said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...So, by this standard, when Powell was supporting not one, but two white men named Bush, he was just a disingenuous Uncle Tom. Got it!

Powell has always been a self serving opportunist since before he was trying to cover up the My Lai Massacre. He chose to make his way in Republican circles because he correctly believed it was to his advantage.

antiphone said...

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

Predictable shit from a predictable asshole.

Kansas City said...

I think it would have been good for America if Powell had been elected president. He always seemed smart and reasonable to me.

However, his explanation of support for Obam is pretty weak. The ideas of "transformational" and "intellectual curiosity" are pretty lame reasons to support someone. I think it does have a lot to do with race, and in the press conference, Powell as much as said so in lauding
"diversity." He also inexplicably seemed to blame McCain for rumors about Obama being a Muslem. I don't think Powell has much interest in domestic policy issues and it seemed like he had not given them much thought.

I did not watch Meet the Press, but I watched Powell's press conferene and was dying for someone to ask him about Obama's lack of judgment in opposing the surge.

Trevor Jackson said...

"Because he thought announcing now would offer more help to the Obama campaign, and so that Obama doesn't forget about him when he's picking cabinet officers."

Or he hadn't made up his mind. Or he had, McCain launched Palinpalooza, and Powell changed his mind. Or Obama's just recently perfected his mind-control ray.

Who knows? Maybe he did decide a long time ago and Obama asked him to hold it back till the end. It's all plausible, especially that mind-control ray. My point is that anyone chalking it up to just race might wonder why poor Alan Keyes went without Powell's endorsement during the Republican primary.

Palladian said...

"Predictable shit from a predictable asshole."

My asshole is entirely unpredictable, especially since I started eating GrapeNuts for breakfast.

Spread Eagle said...

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

You got that right. Powell forgot to mention the main reason he's supporting Obama: Black Like Me. Condi would be endorsing Obama too if she weren't gainfully employed in the Bush administration. JC Watts was on Hannity's radio show awhile back, sounding like he was voting for Obama too. The racial sympatico with Obama among blacks can't be over-estimated.

jdeeripper said...

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

For blacks, yes.

I call it The Garcetti Effect after LA DA Gil Garcetti who falsely believed gender and facts would trump race in selecting the jury for the OJ Simpson case. Garcetti desperately wanted to believe that a mostly black female jury would be capable of being fair and moral in judging the evidence.

He was wrong. For those black females race trumped EVERYTHING!

White people just can't come to terms with it for whatever reason.

bjm said...

Meade: This could just about tip the entire election. My god! Who will be next to endorse Obama? Oprah?

Condi Rice? Now that would be news.

Iraq aside, wherein Powell was a obviously a dupe according to the MSM's newly-minted conventional wisdom. Powell failed as SecState running a feckless, unfocused and ineffective Foggy Bottom, assuming it's possible for the State Dept to become any less effective than it was under Albright.

I admire Powell's military service and record, his civilian service? not so much. He squandered his hard won reputation by accepting a high profile position in an administration with which he did not agree and he was not suited.

Powell was accustomed to a clear and indisputable chain of command and mission, the State Dept is a pit of ideological vipers, elitists and self-servers who quickly undermined and marginalized him.

I suspect Powell is fully aware that his endorsement means more to him personally than to Obama this late in the election. At some point Powell had to make a mea culpa to the African-American community that has roundly rejected him as unauthentic.

Realistically, Powell's political value is nil after five years of the left trashing his judgment and reputation.

However, it would be churlish to fault Powell for wanting to be part of a historical event African-Americans have been dreaming and striving for so long.

If Obama is elected, we will soon see who controls his administration, my money is on Pelosi-Reid. Should the Dems fall short of a super majority it will be fascinating to watch the Black Caucus maneuver Pelosi into a corner.

chickenlittle said...

Palladian wrote:

Because he thought announcing now would offer more help to the Obama campaign, and so that Obama doesn't forget about him when he's picking cabinet officers.

That's pretty close to the truth. Powell knows he'd have no place in a McCain administration, but stands a good chance of reviving his diplomatic/political career under Obama.

I think his remarks about Palin and McCain's judgement were off base.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Sometimes the endless tongue in cheek snark here gets to be too much.

I thought the endorsement was quite moving--humble, moderate, well-reasoned--in Powell's trademark careful, quietly confident tenor. Of course, that's the same tenor that misled a lot of people into the necessity of the Iraq War, but this speech was at least based on non-classified reasoning.

I especially like the way he took on the very real, if thinly disguised, anti-Muslim, anti-foreign scare tactics some on the right have been using.

I encourage commenters here to actually watch it.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Jeez, its like conservative commenters here are trying to paint conservatism as de facto racist. The only reason Powell would endorse Obama is that he's black? Really? I think the right is going to have a long, lonely road ahead of it until it finds its way away from that kind of reactionary and closeminded reasoning.

bjm said...

Palladian said...

I think sexual curiosity should be a qualification for the Presidency.


Clinton owns the meme.

ron st.amant said...

Host writes:
And another American military man sells out his fellow soldiers for personal glory.

Hmm...I think being a 4-star general and a Secretary of State is plenty glory.

If General Powell was sitting in front of you, would you really accuse him of selling out fellow soldiers?

Palladian said...

"Sometimes the endless tongue in cheek snark here gets to be too much."

Aww! Poor baby! Shall I get the smelling salts? Have you got the vapours?

"I thought the endorsement was quite moving--humble, moderate, well-reasoned--in Powell's trademark careful, quietly confident tenor."

With Powell's trademark careful, quietly confident tenor, Oprah's brash, lively alto, and Madonna's soaring and sensual coloratura soprano, this season's "Rigoletto" is sure to be a hit.

Of course, that's the same tenor that misled a lot of people into the necessity of the Iraq War, but this speech was at least based on non-classified reasoning.

"I especially like the way he took on the very real, if thinly disguised, anti-Muslim, anti-foreign scare tactics some on the right have been using."

Yes, as opposed to the anti-everybody, anti-American scare tactics some Muslims have been using. But forget about all those scary things! They won't exist under Obama's nourishing grace. And we certainly have nothing to worry about with Powell in a position of authority! Nothing startles our enemies like a humble, moderate, well-reasoned, careful, quietly confident trademark tenor! Powell for Sec. Def.!

Bob said...

Zachary - Powell never endorsed Bush 41. He was nominated and became Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff under 41. He could not have been confirmed if he had endorsed a candidate as military officers, by tradition, may not. He did endorse Bush 43 but then he got shoved out of State in 2004. So he has an axe to grind here. Plus it will help him when Obama starts the investigations.

Palladian said...

"Jeez, its like conservative commenters here are trying to paint conservatism as de facto racist. The only reason Powell would endorse Obama is that he's black? Really?"

No, honey. But since there's no valid conservative case for supporting Obama, then either Powell is a phony conservative or he's voting with his race.

I suspect a bit of both.

"I think the right is going to have a long, lonely road ahead of it..."

The true Conservative path is always a long, lonely road. It never gets as many votes as promising people free stuff and an easy life under the shielding arms of President Government.

"...until it finds its way away from that kind of reactionary and closeminded reasoning."

I'm trying to find my way away from that kind of convoluted and meaningless sentence. But what's "closeminded" about the truth? Black Americans overwhelmingly vote for other black Americans. You're the one implying that there's something so horrible about that fact that it can't even be uttered.

antiphone said...

Aww! Poor baby! Shall I get the smelling salts? Have you got the vapours?

How about just shutting the fuck up. That would help.

Darcy said...

Why is Colin Powell thought to be a conservative? It's a sincere question.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Palladian,

Sometimes you can be quite witty. Other times you really come across as very unlikeable person.

Sy said...

It is QUITE obvious why Powell is endorsing Obama.

Collin Powell, the first African-American Secretary of State, said this afternoon that electing an African-American US president would be "electrifying" for the world, but he said he still remains undecided between McCain and Obama.

Collin Powell: It's not about race.


This is like a superstar baseball player signing a $125 million for 10 years and saying IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. Most Americans will see the endorsement for what it is.

AJ Lynch said...

Jeez I thought blog readers liked unlikeable commenters. My goal is to be very unlikeable. How am I doing?

LutherM said...

I remember the Norman Schwarzkopf story of rescuing a wounded soldier in the middle of a minefield.
Did Colin Powell, the professional, the volunteer, ever relate to those troops that were drafted, and sent to Viet Nam, in a war which they were not destined to win?
I wonder if Powell can understand, can relate to the people who "get bitter, ... cling to guns or religion", any better than the boy who used that description.
In spite of the fact that, as a successful military man, Colin Powell's education and background differ markedly from Obama's, it is understandable that Powell can endorse Obama - it's the first African American Secretary of State endorsing the first major party nominee who is African American. No one rises to the head of the Armed Forces without playing a good game of politics, and jumping on the bandwagon of the betting favorite is the way to play the odds - especially when you can explain it as backing "a transformational figure."
For those who believe that the Powell endorsement is based on principle, remember the last phrase of THE SUN ALSO RISES - "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Darcy said...

My goal is to be very unlikeable. How am I doing?

Failing.

EDH said...

The only reason Powell would endorse Obama is that he's black?

I'd like to agree with your skepticism, except for one consideration.

Do you think Powell would be endorsing Hillary Clinton right now if she were her party's nominee?

That said, which Democrat do you think Powell is closer to on actual policy and ideology, Hillary or Obama?

Assuming Powell wouldn't be endorsing Hillary now, while closer to her ideologically than Obama, you really do have to ask the question whether race (or sex) is the deal changer for Powell on his Obama endorsement.

Palladian said...

"Sometimes you can be quite witty. Other times you really come across as very unlikeable person."

I feel the same way about you, except for the "witty" part.

Spread Eagle said...

Of course it's racial. In fact, it's ALL racial.

Palladian said...

"How about just shutting the fuck up. That would help."

That would help douche-bags like you, so it's not likely happen.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Powell's made lots of points but a few I remember that seem pretty resonant with conservatism: (1) Palin has proven herself unqualified for the job and McCain's selection of her reflects poorly on him, whereas Obama's choice of Biden reflects seriousness rather than gimmicky. (2) America is a diverse nation, not one big small town with small town values. The GOP acts like the significant percentage of Americans that live in cities are somehow unAmerican. Republicans in leadership and in rank and file have also demogogued and demonized Obama as Muslim and terrorist-sympathizer, and intimated that Muslim-Americans are unqualified to be President. (3) McCain has demonstrated a lack of interest and competence in the economic crisis facing the country. These all strike me as pretty good conservative reasons not to vote for McCain. (4) McCain and Palin have indicated they intend to pursue a more right-wing politics that Powell is comfortable with.

Commenters here don't seem willing to read into Obama's performance that he is smart and thoughtful and careful (read: not erratic like McCain), but those are also conservative reasons to support Obama.

Finally, Powell has never been a partisan ideological conservative. Indeed, he abandoned his first brush with politics by leaving the Bush administration after its first term.

And the idea that Powell is doing this for the glory of an appointment in an Obama administration is beyond absurd. Why the hell would he want that now?

amba said...

Since when did “intellectual curiosity” become a big selling point for Commander-in-Chief, anyway?

Um, Bissage? . . . the very great David Petraeus has a Ph.D.

Palladian said...

"Commenters here don't seem willing to read into Obama's performance that he is smart and thoughtful and careful (read: not erratic like McCain), but those are also conservative reasons to support Obama."

No, you're confusing temperament with philosophy. Having a "conservative temperament" doesn't make you a conservative. Just like acting pious doesn't mean that you're a good Christian.

Palladian said...

I will state it again: there is absolutely no valid conservative case for supporting Obama.

AJ Lynch said...

Amba:

Obama said we are running out of school vouchersin the last debate. He said he will eliminate the cap gains tax for small business investments made in the next two years [ this in particular is an idiotic statement].

It is fair to say based on these two statements, Obama does not understand how vouchers work and has no clue what capital gains taxes mean and how they are applied.

Therefore I could say Obama is THE ONE who lacks intellectual curiosity.

AJ Lynch said...

Damn I should have bet on the NY Giants today. The final score will be about 35-10.

antiphone said...

That would help douche-bags like you, so it's not likely happen.

That’s actually an improvement. More of this kind of thing please.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Palladian has becoming increasingly shrill when it comes to anyone supporting or anything positive being said about Obama. He's got ODS. You just have to get used to it and move on.

amba said...

I think sexual curiosity should be a qualification for the Presidency.

Bubba was your man, then. Has to be downhill all the way from there.

bjm said...

Joseph Hovsep said...

Jeez, its like conservative commenters here are trying to paint conservatism as de facto racist. The only reason Powell would endorse Obama is that he's black? Really?

You sir, are the one judging every word, thought, deed and motive through a racial filter.

Powell could have endorsed Hillary if policy was key in his thinking as there wasn't much difference between the two platforms and Hillary's presidency certainly would have carried an equally significant historical weight.

He did not, so one can only draw the obvious conclusion. What exactly is wrong saying that Powell would take pride in Obama's election from a racial perspective and seek to make amends in a community that has pilloried and isolated him?

Do you not think Powell has smarted from the cruel criticism and crude jokes lobbed at him by an overwhelmingly white Liberal media and being shunned by the African-American political establishment? Perhaps he now believes he made a poor personal choice in aligning with conservatives, it is not racist to comment on his motives or reasoning.

My admiration for General Powell will not be diminished by this endorsement. How shallow would one be to discard his service, sacrifice and accomplishments because one disagrees with his political endorsement?

That is offensive as well.


While I disagree with Obama on every point, I understand the historical and cultural significance of his election and take great satisfaction that America may elect a person of color, however, I would have preferred Condi Rice.

Yes, we will all have a very long and rocky road if every word is to be parsed for racism and any comment or question shouted down as such. The left will marginalize Obama very quickly if this tactic continues after the election.

Darcy said...

Zachary: Shrill? I don't see that at all. I think he is quite calmly and effectively making good points.

Why don't you try taking on his logic, instead of calling him shrill?

Palladian said...

"Why don't you try taking on his logic, instead of calling him shrill?"

Zach and I have this weird, aggressive sexual tension thing going on. Sort of a lust-hate thing.

AJ Lynch said...

Zach you say Palladian is being shrill.

IMO Palladian has the skill to say STFU to an uninformed liberal tool without actually saying it that way.

Original George said...

Powell is Army, McCain Navy.

The record is Navy 52 wins, Army 49 wins and 7 ties with Navy winning 8 of the last 10 games.

That's all you need to know.

Michael_H said...

The crowd of those who seek to be appointed to positions in the Obama administration has started to assemble. Colin Powell, a once dignified man, is in the front row, jumping up and down with his hand in the air screaming "Choose Me! Choose Me! Choose Me!"

He has passed the first test - willingness to lie.

Powell's endorsement of Obama is as much of a surprise as Raul Castro endorsing Fidel.

Darcy said...

Zach and I have this weird, aggressive sexual tension thing going on. Sort of a lust-hate thing.

Ah! Carry on, then! ;)

rhhardin said...

Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

Treasury bonds are stronger than NYC bonds.

Ever since Municipal Assistance Corporation.

AJ Lynch said...

And Zach I did not mean to infer you are one of the uninformed liberals.

Beth said...

No. We just wonder what happened to him? What they have on him. Just how powerful is the Chicago Soros machine?

Commentary brought to you by Reynolds Wrap, Extra-Heavy.

Joan said...

(1) Palin has proven herself unqualified for the job and McCain's selection of her reflects poorly on him, whereas Obama's choice of Biden reflects seriousness rather than gimmicky

That right there demonstrates that Powell is insane. Obama's choice of Biden reflects "seriousness"? Who is he kidding? Biden thinks "jobs" is a three-letter word, he tells wheelchair-bound people to "stand up!", he thinks we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, he wanted to bribe Iran in the early days after 9/11, he wanted to partition Iraq, he voted against the first Iraq war (you know, the one where Saddam invaded Kuwait)... the list in endless. And the selection of Biden is somehow more serious, better, than the selection of the most popular governor in the US?

I don't think so, and there is no way Powell could think so, either. He must have some hella cognitive dissonance going on about now.

rcocean said...

Now we know why Powell didn't accept the VP slot in 2000 or run for President as a Republican.

Ford, Bill Kristol, Brooks, NR, all the usual "Pragmatic" Republicans begged him to run as VP or President in 2000 and 1996. Thank goodness he didn't.

This is massive blow to Republicans. Their share of the black vote will drop from 6 percent to 5 percent.

yashu said...

What (for me) tips this from, entirely in good faith, to something less than that, is precisely accusing McCain of the "muslim" whispers as part of his endorsement of Obama. That goes beyond endorsing (& presenting his reasons for endorsing) Obama, to being used by Obama's campaign to make an ungrounded & unfair & even dirty charge against McCain: it's not much different than levelling the "racist" charge against him, because of things said by random attendees at a rally or online commenters, etc. McCain has explicitly, at the town hall, on national television, strongly & unequivocally rejected the "muslim" meme. To charge McCain with this, after that-- and worse, as evincing something about McCain's very *character* (since this is what is at issue in the endorsement)-- is something lower than I expected of Powell. Now Obama has not just the MSM, but people like Powell doing the sleazy negative campaigning for him. Obama's above such unpleasantness, of course.

To compare: imagine if Joe Lieberman, in his public statement endorsing McCain, had used that opportunity to charge Obama with, oh I don't know, spreading the rumor about Trig's real mother being Bristol (gossip not just spread by random commenters or people at rallies, but a meme entertained by the MSM, even now by certain parties at the Atlantic...)-- and so presenting among his reasons for endorsing McCain, the fact that the Obama campaign is responsible for these despicable rumors used to attack a woman & her daughter, which evidences Obama's (exploitation of) misogyny, and so a factor against his fitness to be president. Not a perfect analogy, but I think it's serviceable enough to make my point. We would not think highly of Lieberman after such an endorsement-- or of McCain.

Simon said...

It's unfortunate that General Powell has chosen to take out his bruised feelings against Bush on the country at large. It would be forgivable had he declined to endorse Bush should the latter have been able and willing to seek a third term, but Bush is not on the ballot. I had hoped he was a better man than that.

Darcy said...

Fantastic point, yashu. Very disappointing that Powell went there.

Meade said...

rhhardin said...
Racial bonds are stronger than ideological bonds.

"Treasury bonds are stronger than NYC bonds."

But even on steroids,Gary U.S. Bonds would not be stronger than Barry Bonds.

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"Is Powell calling Obama a Transformer? What would Obama's Transformer name be, Optimus Sub-Prime?"

Galvatron comes closer to the mark. He was a "transformational" figure too.

Of course, transformational isn't always a good thing. Unicron was a "transformational figure" for Lithone and two of Cybertron's moons, also.

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"[S]o that Obama doesn't forget about him when he's picking cabinet officers."

If there's any kind of deal involved, I think it's more that he's been promised immunity from the Lithwick Commission.

Host with the Most said...
"And another American military man sells out his fellow soldiers for personal glory. Ann must be very happy."

That's just uncalled for; there is no reason at all to question her motives. Don't do that.

"For whatever his flaws, Gen. Powell has a long record of achievement and accomplishment in a difficult system and in difficult times."

All of which is wiped out by what he just did. I disagree with those who say it's about race, by the way. I don't think General Powell is that shallow. I think it's about working out the sense of greivance he has against Bush for wrecking his credibility. I think Powell is convinced that Bush sent him to the United Nations to sell a case that Bush knew was made up, and this is his misguided way of taking revenge. He has picked the wrong target. For that reason, my answer to Trevor's comment that maybe "he hadn't made up his mind" is that I think Powell made up his mind a long time ago - long before Bambi threw his hat in the ring. He was going to endorse _________ (D) for President.

antiphone said...

McCain has explicitly, at the town hall, on national television, strongly & unequivocally rejected the "muslim" meme.

Sure he has and Bush denied his dirty campaign against McCain in 2000. McCain is now using the same sleazy company Bush used against him. They did get results.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/did_mccain_hire_same_firm_to_d.php

Pogo said...

Whenever did Powell get to be considered a conservative?
Because he was involved with Bush?
Phthth.

Apart from doing his duty as a soldier, name one thing he has done or said that fits into the 'conservative' camp.

Palladian's right. There is no conservative case for supporting Obama.

antiphone said...

There is no conservative case for supporting Obama.

There’s no legitimate conservative case for supporting the Republican party as it exists in the real world.

Palladian said...

"McCain is now using the same sleazy company Bush used against him. They did get results."

Well let's hope they're as effective this time as they were in 2000.

Palladian said...

"There’s no legitimate conservative case for supporting the Republican party as it exists in the real world."

Well I'd almost agree with you except there is one factor that makes a case for conservatives support for the Republican party: they're not running Obama as their candidate.

somefeller said...

Judging by the level of vitriol being leveled against Colin Powell here and the accusations being made about his motives, it would appear that Powell's actions have definitely drawn some blood. Perhaps his endorsement is a bigger deal than I thought it would be, if only from the lamentations and woe standpoint.

Revenant said...

He is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage

Translation: he's black, like me.

Roger J. said...

Colin Powell has served this country well, and I for one respect his service. I simply do not agree, however, with his choice of candidates to endorse, but that neither glorifies Obama nor denigrates Powell. It is simply one man's opinion, and deserves no other comment. (except mine, of course :) )

hdhouse said...

Why that Colin Powell! That dickens. Gotta be a traitor not to follow McCain into the swamp. Just gotta be.

Ya'betcha!

Spread Eagle said...

Saying its all about race isn't "vitriol." It's just a fact, and it isn't just a Powell fact. It's a 95%+ of the black population fact.

edh at 12:09 deftly showed us why Powell isn't a part of the other 5%-

antiphone said...

Translation: he's black, like me.

Translation: vote for the fake conservative, he’s white.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I think Powell is convinced that Bush sent him to the United Nations to sell a case that Bush knew was made up, and this is his misguided way of taking revenge.

The difference between Althouse and other blogs is that most of the people who comment here can often times make rational, balanced statements.

So when a comment like the one above happens, it is especially frustrating because it is so mind numbingly partisan and, with all due respect, dumb.

The idea that Powell would endorse Obama as revenge against Bush is so detached from reality, it barely deserves my response. But I'll keep going. First, if Powell really wanted revenge, he'd write a book about how horrible Bush is, like all the other former administration members do. Second, endorsing Obama can only do harm, if anything at all, against McCain, not Bush (although, they are the same person!, so maybe Simon's theory is right?).

And third, it might benefit you to get inside the head of an Obama supporter, even if just for a moment, and try to see the rationale for their support. It's not all Hopey Changey BS.

If anyone's interested, I wrote why I, a reluctant Obama supporter, am endorsing him here.

reader_iam said...

All of which is wiped out by what he just did.

Really?

reader_iam said...

"There’s no legitimate conservative case for supporting the Republican party as it exists in the real world."

This gets my vote for comment of the day.

Joseph Hovsep said...

"Jeez I thought blog readers liked unlikeable commenters. My goal is to be very unlikeable. How am I doing?"

Unfortunately, I think this is more true than not of Althouse commenters. Its why I can only take small doses of Paladian's "you're a douche-bag" style of the Althouse commenter political commentary.

Palladian said...

Joseph is such a sensitive young man!

reader_iam said...

I don't care who Colin Powell endorses, but then, I don't much care about or for Big Endorsements of any kind (including media; I hated the editorial board endorsement process back in the day). There's too much of an air of The Enlightened deigning to share their superior judgment with all those dumb sheep out there.

I am NOT talking about Powell, specifically ... this is just my personal, visceral reaction to the whole endorsement idea, from way back. Call it a quirk, but I usually don't even bother to read or listen to them.

Palladian said...

Can I endorse you, reader?

yashu said...

Yeah, I'm with reader on the endorsement thing, in general.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Yes, Paladian, it takes an especially sensitive sort to object to your calling people douche bags and racists while offering up vivid descriptions of your bowel movements. Such famous wit and charm!

Nichevo said...

somefeller, anytime a conservative speaks up at all there are people saying what you say, that the very fact of their response, never mind its content, proves the seriousness of whatever charge is being bandied about that given day.

I suppose we should all just shut up? Tell me what we can rightfully say to respond, because we obviously need your guidance. Which is better, Peccavi or Mea culpa?

Obama doesn't have to be a cannibal for me not to wish him elected President. I'm sorry the same presumption of innocence cannot be applied to me.

antiphone said...

Obama doesn't have to be a cannibal for me not to wish him elected President

Of course not, you’re probably white and white folks vote for white candidates. That’s perfectly natural.

somefeller said...

somefeller, anytime a conservative speaks up at all there are people saying what you say, that the very fact of their response, never mind its content, proves the seriousness of whatever charge is being bandied about that given day.

The sword cuts both ways. There's no shortage of such commentary on both sides. I recall when Palin was announced as VP, to much criticism and mockery from the left, a lot of conservative commenters (including here) said that such criticism and mockery was proof that liberals were scared of Palin because she was such an undeniably brilliant choice who would totally bring women over to the GOP, etc., etc. (For the record, at the time I said picking Palin was a Hail Mary pass, which by definition means a play that may save the game for you, but more than likely will just sputter out, and I think I'm probably going to be vindicated on that analysis.)

However, I submit that the Powell example is a different one, in that Powell isn't a lightning rod figure, ideologically or otherwise, so the immediate aspersions on his judgment and motives (particularly with regard to race) have the smell of fear to them. And I'm speaking as someone who generally thinks endorsements from people and newspapers (not important interest groups, like NARAL or the NRA) don't generally count for much.

Simon said...

Zach, if you want to argue that I'm wrong, and that Powell's endorsement really is motivated by "racial solidarity" rather than perceived slghts by Bush, I'm not going to stop you. I just don't think that the racial angle is the more likely of the two possible explanations. Powell has served in the army and I just find it hard to believe that a military man would buy into this race nonsense. War is a great leveller: that fucker shooting at your platoon doesn't care what race you are, and we all bleed the same color. "For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother." I just can't imagine anyone could go through that experience and be so obtuse as to think race matters.

reader_iam said...
"'There’s no legitimate conservative case for supporting the Republican party as it exists in the real world.' This gets my vote for comment of the day."

why? It's jejune. The conservative case for the GOP is quite obvious. Of the two partys, it's better. As I said the other week: "Our job, as conservatives, isn't to waste our powder trying to hold back the tide - it's to do everything we can to save the best, the brightest, the most important. It's to delay the inevitable. We can't save the city, but we can, perhaps, hold the barbarians back as long as possible." And that's Powell's sin here: he has helped the barbarians by endorsing their leader.

Simon said...

somefeller said...
"I recall when Palin was announced as VP, to much criticism and mockery from the left, a lot of conservative commenters (including here) said that such criticism and mockery was proof that liberals were scared of Palin because she was such an undeniably brilliant choice who would totally bring women over to the GOP, etc., etc."

Certainly I underestimated how shamelessly the left would run utterly incredible attacks against her. The ludicrous "she isn't qualified" meme absolutely blindsided me, for example; I just cannot understand how anyone backing Obama has the gall to say that about Palin. It's the most stunningly intellectually dishonst move I've ever seen in politics. In addition, I think we underestimated how venal and vicious the media would be in trying to destroy Palin for Obama. I don't know why we thought this, but at the time, it seemed reasonable to think that the media would be constrained by its traditional desire to appear unbiased. This season, they evidently decided that they couldn't afford that luxury - the threat to The One had to be destroyed.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Simon, in the few interviews Palin has given, she has proven herself unqualified. This is not radical leftists making stuff up. Youre right that the Dems would be uniquely ill-suited to make such a claim about Palin given Obama's youth and minimal national experience. But she has undermined her own credibility with her terrible performance (and refusal to submit to press availability).

Nichevo said...

antiphone, you are entitled to say that, base on the First Amendment, but not on a fair reading of my words. I for one have not (or did I? perhaps I forget) advanced the hypothesis of racial solidarity or pride in Powell's endorsement of Obama.

Even if it were so, I cannot find it entirely reprehensible - I would almost certainly like to vote for a Jewish POTUS candidate if his or her politics weren't too vile. I am sorry that the black vote has become so monolithic and the appearance of black political groupthink so absolute.

The thing is, I am not certain that Powell has this degree of shall we say racial pride. For one thing, the experience of my friend's father with Powell at ROTC. For another, he is of Caribbean extraction, and in my experience West Indians do not identify so tightly with native African-Americans.

I think the probable motive is more in the nature of sociopolitical climbing, his lifetime trademark. Which he is entitled to do, but which does not reflect to his credit in my book. The more so as it will likely buy him little, and that chiefly in the coin of the good opinion of those whose opinion means little, to me at any rate. Perhaps now he will be able to dine at Harry Belafonte's home.

You will say I am being tendentious in disbelieving his stated motives. I hope I have been clear and even-toned in saying that these defy belief. The most honest interpretation of those remarks, ISTM, would be "because he's black."

Incidentally, you could also say (i.e., you have the power to move lips and tongue to the effect of saying) that I vote for male candidates because I'm a man. How fortunate for you, then, that HRC is not the candidate and you don't have to sell that line, because I am itching to vote for Sarah Palin. Who, I assure you, is NOT a man.

As for black candidates, there are plenty of conservative black politicians worthy of my support. Should they run in NY or nationwide they will have my full attention. Meanwhile, I don't think any presidential candidate in my lifetime really reminds me of me or my in-group in any way; except perhaps that I have sympathy for Bush 41 and 43's dyslexia.

Really, antiphone, is this the best you can do? With the best will in the world I have to say I am not impressed.

Oh, and somefeller, I'll get to you next, but please don't confuse the length of my responses with fury, panic, or whatever. I just think and type fast, and obviously prolix.

Nichevo said...

"The sword cuts both ways."

somefeller, this is somewhat fair. (I love the smell of Tu quoque in the morning...it smells like speaker points!) At a brute level you could make the comparison between Powell and Palin. However, I think that the intensity differs in degree.

For instance no one has called Gen. Powell a twinkletoed communistic cocksucker who paradoxically fathers bastard children on women he then murders in Satanic rites to collect their welfare checks. Or something.

If the Left had restrained itself to what I could regard as a vaguely fair critique of Gov. Palin...but they didn't. I found it crazy and thus I found it desperate.

So, I find the comparison invidious and sophist.

antiphone said...

why? It's jejune

Actually it’s the middle of October last time I checked.

Simon said...

Joseph,
Before we can make any kind of fair assesment of what Palin actually showed in those interviews, we need to see the full, unedited footage. The media set out to destroy her within an hour of her announcement as the veep; they have barely even hidden it beyond ritualistic recitations of the liturgy that the press is neutral. Any reasonable assesment of their behavior must conclude that they have acted as an arm of the Obama campaign; indeed, an assesment that does not is ipso facto not reasonable. Thus, unless they release the unedited footage, the presumption must be that editing room bias is responsible for the broad disconnect we see between the Palin we know and the Palin that the media is presenting to us.

Moreover, the left would be in a better position to make this claim had they not already showed their desperation to seize ahold of any flotsam that comes their way - the ridiculous and discredited idea that Chuck Gibson's "Bush doctrine" question was a good faith submission and that Palin should be faulted for asking Gibson to clarify which of the several meanings of that term he had in mind. (In the end, it turned out that the meaning Gibson had in mind is a meaning that has never hitherto been thought to have been borne by "the bush doctrine.")

Lastly, I know that the term "radical" has been abused, and I regret that, but the fact is that what Obama proposes is radical, and many of his followers would go even further. "Radical" has attained overtones of violent bombthrowing, and I don't mean to evoke that, but the plain and simple fact is that Obama is a radical, his supporters are even more so, and yes, the media is essentially functioning as a department of his campaign. Pointing to Katy Couric or the New York Times for a story about Palin has as much credibility as pointing to Obama's press releases. The former follows the latter.

AJ Lynch said...

Antiphone:

A liberal with a sense of humor. Welcome!

Simon said...

antiphone said...
"Actually it’s the middle of October last time I checked."

See Fowler's Modern English Usage 427 (3d ed. 1996).

Nichevo said...

OK, simon, it was funny. Actually not very funny (har-dee-har-har, ba-dump-bump, he's here all week, try the veal), but it was clearly intended as a joke. And as we know, to the left, intentions are all.

Let's not be pedantic. Let he who is without [JOKE FAIL] cast the first stone.

(Besides, you just want to show off that you own a hard copy of Fowler ;>)

That said, antiphone - go watch some Emeril and kick it up a notch, eh?

Ann Althouse said...

Hey, I almost just made a vlog bandying about my "hardcopy" of Fowler... on the whole "beverage" controversy from yesterday's "annoying" post.

Darcy said...

Question: What Powell said today, about not being able to support two more Republican appointments at this time to the Supreme Court - that doesn't raise eyebrows about his conservatism?

And further, does anyone supporting Obama as a viable choice as a conservative really believe there is no difference as to the judicial appointments he might make and John McCain's?

Huge conservative issue. Where the rubber meets the road, and Powell was exposed here, I think.

Simon said...

Ann - oddly enough, the edition I have doesn't have "beverage" listed. It jumps from "betwixt" (which I like in some contexts, but Fowler deprecates) to "beware."

Bryan Garner has a daily "usage tips" email, written very much in the Fowler vein, that I would encourage everyone to subscribe to.

Simon said...

Darcy said...
"Question: What Powell said today, about not being able to support two more Republican appointments at this time to the Supreme Court - that doesn't raise eyebrows about his conservatism?"

I suppose he could offer the defense that many Republican appointments to the Supreme Court haven't actually been judicial conservatives. Remember, Bill Brennan, Harry Blackmun and David Souter were "Republican appointments" (and Harriet Miers was an attempt at one). Moreover, I think the case could be made that there are different kinds of conservatives - no one who studies what the court actually does could say there is no difference between, say, Roberts and Renquist, on the one hand, and Scalia and Thomas on the other. But those are fine distinctions, and I doubt it's what Powell had in mind. Powell doesn't like the thoght of finally getting a five-vote conservative majority on the court, something entirely possible under McCain, and unimaginable for a generation if Obama wins.

gregq said...

"intellectual curiosity"

Obama was at University of Chicago for 12 years. And how many Republican or libertarian Economics Professors did he discuss politics or economics with? 0?

Obama has written two books. The topic? Himself.

How many law review articles has Professor Obama written?

As an undergraduate, Obama wrote a senior thesis. Has anyone read it? He's been trapped into admitting that he wrote one law review article while he worked for the law review. Has anyone read it?

Is there existing even a single example of academic writing by Barack Obama, that displays any special level of intellectual curiosity, academic competence, or intellectual rigor?

Or is this all just more Bidenesque "clean and articulate" babbling?

gregq said...

I've fleshed my comment out a bit into a blog post.

Nichevo said...

Also, back on Obama's intelligence: any signs of it OUTSIDE of verbal fluency? Which people who live by verbal fluency, oddly enough, seem to overvalue.

Who thinks he would come up big at, or even survive, flight school? Who thinks he would beat Palin on an episode of Survivor?

I have come to value people's mouths less these days. Blowjobs aside of course.

Fred4Pres said...

I have no problem with General Powell supporting Barack Obama (he is entitled to support whomever he wishes), but claiming Republicans are suggesting Barack Obama is Muslim is flatly, completely, and unequivically incorrect and a lie from General Powell.

The GOP is NOT doing that. The McCain campaign is NOT doing that. A few fringe individuals and pundits are definitely doing that, but I have NOT heard that from Hannity, Rush, National Review, The Weekly Standard, or other major conservative figures.

Ann Althouse said...

Simon said..."Ann - oddly enough, the edition I have doesn't have "beverage" listed. It jumps from "betwixt" (which I like in some contexts, but Fowler deprecates) to "beware.""

I have the second edition, and "beverage" is between "betwixt" and "beware." The entry is entirely a reference to 2 other entries: "pedantic humour" and "working with stylish words." "Stylish" words for Fowler is a negative. You shouldn't use a "stylish" word when there is a plain word that fits. So you should write "drink" and not "beverage" unless there is some special reason for it.

Cedarford said...

Like it or not, when times are bad and people feel threatened, they cross Party lines. Happened with the FDR coalition moving blacks and Jews to the Dem side, happened with Southerners and conservative Democrats decisively going for Nixon ('68 would have been no contest but for Wallace, as Nixon's '72 Landslide was). And we all know about Reagan Democrats. Then how Noble Algore's environmental extremism cost him the sitting Dem President's homestate and his own homestate of Tennessee - costing him the 2000 election.

Instead of doing their own version of moveon.org's "General Betray Us!" on Powell - maybe it would better suit Right Wingers and Republicans overall to consider why they are losing the West, New England, North Midwest, and now portions of the South. Why they lost the Hispanic vote inroads Bush I and Reagan had. Why white women now vote Democrat over Republican by a 20-point margin.

If you are being sent into the Wilderness by voters, chances are "it isn't the other guy's fault". It isn't Obama - it's also a rejection of Republicans in Congress - who are looking for a bloodbath on the level of the 74 Elections after Watergate.

It ain't Powell that is the problem:

1. The stagnation of Reaganism and voodoo eonomics 30 years later as not working well in a new world.

2. Republicans blowing their 1994 Revolution into an orgy of spending, corruption, personal enrichment through K-Street Lobbyists.

3. The failure of Republican free trade, globalisation, Corporatism, Open Borders - to improve the lot of the working and middle class. The rich not only are getting richer, but actively screwing other Americans through increased job insecurity, taking almost all productivity gains in America the last 20 years to the top 2%.

4. Loss of welfare, crime, and gun-grabbing as salient issues.

5. Now applying Religious litmus tests to candidates inside and outside the Deep South. Theocratic scare tactics. The anti-science and anti-education stance of Fundies. The wierd Christian Zionist sect that puts a foreign country 1st over America's interests.

6. The promise of endless war abroad because "we owe it" to "freedom-lovers".

7. The track record of the Bush Right-Wingers, believing "government is the problem" - who then set out to prove government would fail if they were in power.

Don't blame Powell, anymore than blame Reagan Democrats went to the Republicans in a different era.

Simon said...

Cedarford said...
"It ain't Powell that is the problem ... [other cuases include] Republicans blowing their 1994 Revolution into an orgy of spending, corruption, personal enrichment through K-Street Lobbyists."

I think that's the problem, all right. The GOP's leaders did not govern as Republicans; they were sent to carry out a mission, and while some merely failed, many actively crossed over and went to work for the enemy. They got into rent-seeking and pork for votes, and one study I remember demonstrated that Bush was already presiding over the biggest expansion of government even before the so-called "bailout."

But for the same reason, your claim that another contributing problem was "[t]he track record of the Bush Right-Wingers, believing 'government is the problem' - who then set out to prove government would fail if they were in power" is problematic. I would accept that part of the problem is that there's a perception that this was the case, but it's false. This administration did not set out to constrict government. This was not a small government administration. This was an administration that is perfectly content with big government, and it's unfortunate if those of us who don't believe in it are being tarred by association because this administration are being called practitioners of it. It's comparable to the financial crisis, where a collapse of one of the most heavily regulated sections of the economy was improbably sold as the result of deregulation.

Nor is it true that there is a "[r]eligious litmus test[] ... [for] candidates" or "[t]heocratic scare tactics." That's just silly. You'll notice that amidst the forest of op/eds written by liberals claiming that the GOP wouldn't accept Romney because he was a mormon, there was not one tree of a credible conservative leader saying the same thing.

Cedarford said...

I beg to differ on Romney. He was made to jump through so many hoops by the Fundies to prove he wasn't really a heretic at heart that he lost part of voter's perception of his authenticity.
Just as Tom Ridge, Giuliani, and Arnold are rejected by "The Southern Base".

We saw the results of the Religious Litmus test - the Religious Right went with their favorite, Pastor Huckleberry. Traditionals went with Thompson or Romney. A 3-way split. Leaving the door wide open for McCain. Who then locked up the race by taking winner-take-all NE Blue States the Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in the General.(After the Religious Right screwed "baby killer" Rudy in the South, knocking him out)

Leaving the Religious Right all pissed off that they got McCain. Who they deserved.

Leaving the treacherous McCain, who apparantly wanted Lieberman, a liberal Dem on all issues but culture and wars for Israel's good - no choice but to give the Base a Fundie VP.

Which "excited" the Base, but apparantly no one else. She is a Cult Goddess to some, but the general effect of her has not been to bring women onboard given her anti-abortion religious zealotry - Or regular people now deeply concerned about Obama's lack of experience seeing her as sitting in the Oval Office if old McCain dies or has more "major health challenges" - and thinking; "This is a good woman, but she is in over her head...she needed more time to get ready for national office."

Mark said...

I'm sure the humor here is unintentional:

3. The failure of Republican free trade, globalisation, Corporatism, Open Borders - to improve the lot of the working and middle class. The rich not only are getting richer, but actively screwing other Americans through increased job insecurity, taking almost all productivity gains in America the last 20 years to the top 2%.

4. Loss of welfare, crime, and gun-grabbing as salient issues.

Michael_H said...

From Hillbuzz: Rush Limbaugh gets it right, as usual.

Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell’s decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama’s status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”

As for Powell’s statement of concern this morning about the sort of Supreme Court justices a President McCain might appoint, Limbaugh wrote: “I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let’s hear it for transformational figures.”

Simon said...

Cedarford, I understand what you're saying about Romney; yes, he was made to jump through additional hoops, but I think you're misinterpreting the reason. He was subjected to heightened scrutiny because he claimed fidelity to views on certain important issues but the sincerity of those views were questioned. I think that on a gut level, the base of the GOP were more comfortable with Giuliani because they were willing to deal with someone who was honest about his disagreements with them, but were skeptical that Romney was just telling them what they wanted to hear. For what it's worth, I think those concerns were misplaced; I have no reason to doubt Romney's sincerity. Saying you're pro-life in this day and age is like saying you're for emancipation in 1830s Alabama; I can't imagine someone risking the scorn of the "sophisticated" world by espousing pro-life views if they're not serious.

Ridge's problem this time around was that you can't have a ticket consisting of two of the most moderate members of the GOP. If he had run, maybe he'd have been viable. And Schwarzenegger's problem is the native born clause, not the base.

The speculation that McCain wanted to pick Lieberman is all the rage, but I don't believe it. McCain picked Palin because he sees her as being much like himself: an outsider crusading to clean up government. Now, of course, that isn't McCain in actuality, but that's his self image, and maybe that isn't Palin, but he thought it was (and I think so, too). How does Lieberman fit into that picture? I think the campaign blew smoke to heighten the surprise of the pick (a lot of people saw her as the natural choice before he picked her, including me, and wanted McCain to pick her, but few of us thought he would actually do it). Stop inhaling the smoke. ;) She's really terrific, and the critics can go fuck themselves. David Brooks is a good writer, but the idea that he speaks for conservatives is just laughable. Noonan and Will are harder to dismiss, but with all due respect, their reaction can't be taken seriously.

rcocean said...

Cederford as usual combines the good with the absurd.

The coming loss is due the moderate Republican party leadership and their followers who represent maybe 35% of the party and reside mostly in the Blue states.

They are the ones always harrumphing about "populism" and asking when the Republicans going to start talking about the important stuff - like cutting corporate taxes and the intervening in the Georgian Russian conflict

These moderate, blue-blood country club types, constantly support the same old, boring, NYC-DC elitists, who stand for nothing except personal ambition and a desire to strut on the world stage.

.

They foisted Ford, Bush I, Dole and now McCain on us. Before that it was Rockefeller and Dewey. They fought Reagan with everything they had, and only accepted him as an alternative to Carter. They wanted McCain because he appealed to Moderates - now they'll try to blame the loss on the VP.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"The coming loss is due the moderate Republican party leadership and their followers "

The coming loss, if it comes, is due to the Bush administration. Period. There's all sorts of qualifiers and additions that could be offered around that, but that's the bottom line: if we fail to retain the White House this year, it'll be because of Bush.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Darcy said...
[...]

Thank you. We've got one of these rhetoricians running Michigan right now, and it is exactly the disaster you speak of.

EKC for President!

10:31 AM


I humbly yet regally accept your endorsement to which I am entitled, obviously. And with a cool disposition and intellectual curiosity, I promise to rule over all of you with hope and change.

Thank you.

JAL said...

Ahhhh .... but I do believe EKC is not qualified.

Am I right?

rcocean said...

Simon,

Bush I, Ford, Dewey and Dole all had excuses too.

And lets not forget that Bush II governed as a compassionate conservative and would have lost in 2004 except for 9-11, the Iraq war, and the Democrats nominating the most unlikable Presidential candidate since LBJ.

Cedarford said...

Simon -
I wasn't inferring that Arnold was a Presidential choice, just that the "Base" has rejected the popular governor of America's wealthiest, most populous state as a Republican National Leader. Instead he is termed a "traitor" who could never cut it in rural Alabama.

Mark - there is unintentional humor. Mainly at your failing to see a difference between bread and butter issues for the working, middle class where voters think the Republicans have major failings, and cultural wedge issues. Which in the case of welfare, crime, and gun-grabbing - Republican success has made them less salient issues to voters.

Rcocean - The coming loss is due the moderate Republican party leadership and their followers who represent maybe 35% of the party and reside mostly in the Blue states.

Well, yes, that is about all that is left of the Party outside the Bible Belt. Remember Republicans used to own California, all the West, most of New England and Ohio/Pennylvania in recent memory. Now the Right-Wing calls them "goddamn blue states" with the same level of insight (blind) that Dems blamed Southerners when they lost them from policies that failed to serve that region.

Would Saint Reagan have passed muster with the present Republican Right Wing zealots? Not likely, if he ran now. Remember this was the man who signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation, was an ex-Democrat and union head, was for the most part a non-observant Christian, and had a pile of gay friends.

As things stand, Republican Right-Wingers are a lot like McGovernites - happy to see state after state slip away so they can get down to a "pure" clump of states (for Republicans apparantly limited to a band of small states except Texas, going from Oklahoma to SC) - and to hell with the rest and having the Presidency and Supreme Court nominees and Congress.

They foisted Ford, Bush I, Dole and now McCain on us. Before that it was Rockefeller and Dewey. They fought Reagan with everything they had..
They "foisted" centrists Eisenhower, Nixon on us to mass voter approval. Gave us great leaders out of the 50% of the country now abandoned to Democrats. They opposed Reagan on his voodoo economics - which proved to have bit us now.

As Republicans head off into the Wilderness, they can argue how they lost because they weren't far enough to the right of the actaul Saint Reagan, much as Dems argued they kept losing because they weren't far enough to the Left of the actual Saint JFK....

Or they can get realistic and realize the country wants a pack of religiously intolerant, big spending rubes from the Deep South running the country as much as they want NYC Elites. And get realistic and admit supply-side, "trickledown" failed - and ignoring the middleclass, poor, and working folks to focus on rewarding the rich is not a very sound political theory given demographics.
Nor does America thirst for bad government and endless wars to serve "freedom-lovers"unwilling to fight themselves.

former law student said...

Why are conservatives so quick to ascribe ignoble motives to someone who has served our country so long and so well as General Powell? Especially a bitchy gasbag who used the miracle of an ingrown hair to avoid military service. (McCain also came across as bitchy and whiny in the last debate. Is pettiness and whining an essential part of the conservative ethos?)

The greater problem for conservatives is that Bush and Cheney's performance in office has bankrupted any goodwill the ideology ever had. It's time for conservatives to regroup and rethink their ideology -- right now it's indistinguishable from "Me First, Fsck You."

Nichevo said...

1) Is racial solidarity an ignoble motive? Please say yes.

2) Because his declared motives are worthy of a drug-addled teen, not a man of his stature.

I'm just going to ignore the rest for now. I always strive for completeness but let's focus.

Nichevo said...

In fine, FLS, when he says

"the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president,"

what can he possibly mean? I won't bore you with dictionary definitions but this statement is simply not operative. It ain't just impossible, like unicorns or the Lee Harvey Oswald standard of marksmanship, it is structurally impossible, like rolling a 13 on 2d6. Syntax error.

And Powell is no Biden to be running his mouth off. He meant, I feel certain, to convey this information as his rationale.

Therefore, ISTM:

a) He is, sorry to say, apparently lying;

b) He is, sorry to say, transparently lying because this wouldn't fool anyone who didn't wish to be fooled;

c) He doesn't care enough to come up with a better, more believable lie.

Anyway, you insult and slime good, great and decent people all the time. Tu quoque, perhaps, but why should you have all the fun?

Nichevo said...

Including Gen. Powell, BTW. I guarantee - I wish I had some free cash to put in escrow to bet with you, as seems to be the rule here - that back when anybody cared about Iraq, you had harsh and even disrespectful words for the general.

And if by some chance you held your tongue over say his UN speech - not structurally impossible - I think we both know that many other posters on this board felt and said the same or worse. Think of any names, can we? Want to go down them and criticize them for bashing the guy who is now your guy? Did you do so at the time?

This is why I use references to Orwell when talking about the leftist tactics. "Powell is bad" just went down the memory hole. Maybe he wants to run for President in 2012 after seeing what a lot of crapweasels are in the running of late.

Revenant said...

Why are conservatives so quick to ascribe ignoble motives to someone who has served our country so long and so well as General Powell?

Because there isn't a noble motive that makes any rational sense. So either he's become irrational or his motives are ignoble.

And don't bore us with your belated attempts to praise the man. You lefties wanted him up on war crimes charges until he decided to support the Magic Negro.

Host with the Most said...

Noonan and Will are harder to dismiss, but with all due respect, their reaction can't be taken seriously.

George Will must wait for another discussion.

But Peggy Noonan - of whom I own not one but 2 signed books - is a progressively out-of-touch and increasingly condescending faux conservative. I have read her descent into "as long as I throw something as a wink to my West Side of Manhattan friends" in the Wall Street journal for the last 4 years. Her disappointment with the current President has lead her - just like it has Colin Powell - to sell out her party, and worse, to sell out the brave men and women who believed that they were playing a part in an honorable campaign in Iraq. Barack Obama was wrong about Iraq all along, and he will be forced to follow through with his interpretation of ending American involvement in it. Which means that no matter how long he takes to bring our troops home, he and his minions will always be careful to classify Iraq as a "mistake". The wet dream of Democrats - the United States pulling another war in the "loss" column of our history - will always be part of the "official" narrative. Add that to the basic antipathy that the left has toward the military in this country, and we will see the United States military and it's security preparations for this country undermined just as it was under Democrats Carter and Clinton. No one in the world believes that Pelosi / Obama can be better with our military than the two previous Democrat demoralizing military eunuchs.


Safe for 7 + years under Bush. Kiss that good-bye under Obama - guaranteed. When the next terrorist attack next happens in America - and it will under Pelosi/Obama, be sure to look in the mirror and give yourself a pat on the back.

ElcubanitoKC said...

JAL said...
Ahhhh .... but I do believe EKC is not qualified.

Am I right?

11:34 PM



JAL, my army of minions, I mean, lawyers, will be knocking down your door with a SWAT team as soon as I am inaugurated.

Simon said...

Cedarford said...
"I wasn't inferring that Arnold was a Presidential choice"

You're looking for "imply" (or perhaps "insinuate"); I the writer imply, you the reader infer. While it's true that using infer as a synonym for imply has a lengthy history, it's an unfortunate and indefensible habit that muddies the language and makes writing less precise. I prefer to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, and I hope you'll join me over here. :)

"just that the 'Base' has rejected the popular governor of America's wealthiest, most populous state as a Republican National Leader. Instead he is termed a 'traitor' who could never cut it in rural Alabama."

At the end of last month, his polls stood at 42% approve to 54% disapprove. He's in an unfortunate situation, and the man's doing the best he can, but he isn't especially popular. Funnily enough, there's another western Republican Governor who is genuinely and outstandingly popular, but you don't seem to like her so much.

"Would Saint Reagan have passed muster with the present Republican Right Wing zealots? Not likely, if he ran now. Remember this was the man who signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation"

That story has been told so many times, and although it hasn't turned into Chinese Whispers, because its content remains essentially true, but it's been shorn of its context and made misleading. The statute was "most liberal abortion law in the nation" in 1967 - years before Roe and At least one biographer says that Reagan only signed the bill because his lawyers told him it would leave most abortions illegal, and it's hard to fault Reagan for not foreseeing the tactics that the post-Roe pro choice lobby would use to exploit loopholes in post-Roe abortion laws. Would Reagan pass muster if ran now? Well, that question ignores the passage of time; it's hard to see how anyone who was a Governor before Roe would be young enough to seek the nomination, and anyone who signed an abortion law after Roe would be in an incomparable position. It's not a hypothetical question, it's an unanswerable one.

former law student said...
"Why are conservatives so quick to ascribe ignoble motives to someone who has served our country so long and so well as General Powell?"

Echo Revenant: "Because there isn't a noble motive that makes any rational sense. So either he's become irrational or his motives are ignoble."

former law student said...

former law student said...
"Why are conservatives so quick to ascribe ignoble motives to someone who has served our country so long and so well as General Powell?"

Echo Revenant: "Because there isn't a noble motive that makes any rational sense. So either he's become irrational or his motives are ignoble."


General Powell is acting rationally. Perhaps you and Revenant should change your assumptions to align with reality, then reanalyze conservatism as currently practiced to see if it is actually rational. It is a bankrupt ideology.

to sell out the brave men and women who believed that they were playing a part in an honorable campaign in Iraq.

Their service was and is honorable; their leaders' motives for sending them there were dishonorable.

Simon said...

former law student said...
"General Powell is acting rationally."

He endorsed Barack Obama while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative. That is not rational behavior. We must assume that he is either acting irrationally, or has taken leave of his senses and is acting quasi-rationally based on deeply flawed assumptions, which comes to the same thing.

"Perhaps you and Revenant should change your assumptions to align with reality, then reanalyze conservatism as currently practiced to see if it is actually rational. It is a bankrupt ideology."

Hardly. That some of our leaders have stopped practicing it doesn't taint the "ideology" (how peculiar to see conservatism called an "ideology"!).

Revenant said...

He endorsed Barack Obama while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative. That is not rational behavior.

Exactly. Powell's behavior does not square with his stated beliefs. That means either his actions are out of line with his beliefs, or his actual beliefs are other than what he told us they were.

Nichevo said...

"Exactly. Powell's behavior does not square with his stated beliefs. That means either his actions are out of line with his beliefs, or his actual beliefs are other than what he told us they were."

I thought I explained this already, above, but maybe I typed in invisible ink. How am I supposed to get my own tag and a crack at Althouse's sweet thang if nobody pays any attention to me? [snif]

I admit I did not explore the hypothesis that he was a closeted lefty all along. (Is it harsher to call him an opportunist or a long-term deceiver, a leftist mole?) I suppose he could have "evolved" in his views; people do that. I used to be pretty unthinkingly pro-choice, when I thought that was right.

bleeper said...

I think he has always been leftwing, and an opportunist, and he undercut the war since before it started. He is still a leftist and an opportunist.

He will be a great addition to the new administration.

Nichevo said...

bleeper, I hope you're being rhetorical - let's not give in to despair. The fat lady may be in wardrobe, but she has not yet sung.