View Full Version : Presidential candidate endorsements
The purpose of this thread is to collect and to comment on endorsements offered by media outlets.
I'll start with this offering from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html
To paraphrase Tolstoy, right now I hate the world and every journalist in it.
From what I have read in the news today the LA Times, NY Times, Chicago Sun Tribune, and Chicago Sun Times joined with the Washington Post in endorsing Obama. Not too surprising as far as I am concerned. I have not heard about any media outlets endorsing McCain.
There is word on the street Colin Powell will endorse a candidate when he is on Meet the Press this weekend.
USANick7
10-18-2008, 03:58
I have a bumper sticker on my car that says:
"Barak Obama, supported by terrorists...both foreign AND domestic!"
I would like to see a side by side comparison endorsement wise.
Anybody know any sites that provide that?
bluenote
10-18-2008, 07:23
The following quality people and organizations that have America's best interests at heart have endorsed Obama:
Hamas, http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html
Communist Party of the USA, http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/975/
Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, http://www.noi.org/statements/statement_02-28-2008.htm
New Black Panther Party, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60325
MoveOn.org, http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html
Fidel Castro, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/fidel_castro_endorses_obama_ag.html
There are a few more, like Jeremiah Wright, Jane Fonda, Hugo Chavez, and North Korea. Take Care. BN
The following quality people and organizations that have America's best interests at heart have endorsed Obama:
Hamas, http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html
Communist Party of the USA, http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/975/
Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, http://www.noi.org/statements/statement_02-28-2008.htm
New Black Panther Party, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60325
MoveOn.org, http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html
Fidel Castro, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/fidel_castro_endorses_obama_ag.html
There are a few more, like Jeremiah Wright, Jane Fonda, Hugo Chavez, and North Korea. Take Care. BN
Blue Note, nicely done.
Colin Powell gives his endorsement to B. Hussein Obama. What does this mean to the election?
bluenote
10-19-2008, 08:03
I don't think Colin Powell's endorsement will have much effect. The news media will try to play it up, but he has been off the political radar for a few years now. If he had endorsed McCain we would have never heard his name again. If he was still an active duty General, or sitting Sec of State than it would be pretty bad. He always had some liberal views so the announcement doesn't really come as a shock. I see it more of like "look who we dug up and dusted off". Take Care. BN
rubberneck
10-19-2008, 09:04
Colin Powell gives his endorsement to B. Hussein Obama. What does this mean to the election?
Colin Powell has been moving left over the past couple of years so his endorsement of Obama is of little surprise. It will hurt McCain with some independents that worry about Obama's ability to handle national security issues just as it would have helped Obama's foreign policy credentials if he had been endorsed by Henry Kissinger.
Frankly I am very disappointed in Powell's actions. I don't have a problem with his endorsing Obama as that is his right. What I do have a problem with him stating very publicly that he wasn't going to endorse either candidate only to renege on that promise less than three weeks from the election. It smacks of dishonesty and a lack of integrity, and was clearly done to try and influence the outcome of the election. It pains me to say that as I have the deepest respect for him and his service to our country, and to be frank as a non-veteran I feel very uncomfortable questioning the integrity a decorated veteran but I can't avoid reaching any other conclusion.
I respect Powell and he has been moving more left for a while. I do not think his endorsement will make much of any difference.
The media will try to spin it a lot but it will not make or break the election.
alright4u
10-19-2008, 09:25
I respect Powell and he has been moving more left for a while. I do not think his endorsement will make much of any difference.
The media will try to spin it a lot but it will not make or break the election.
Powell was a BN CO in the 3rd BDE 2nd ID in 73-74. I will refrain from posting about him.
Goggles Pizano
10-19-2008, 09:36
The media will take this ball and run however I don't believe it will be a difference maker. I find the General's explanation of his choice for POTUS a bit disingenuous. "He is troubled by Republican party's attacks on Obama", and "this is the time to reach out" are quotes that confirm my doubts about his standing among conservatives. He always seemed to take the easy road politically, and that makes this decision less valid in my book. Sorry Sir, but the elephant in the room is you actually did make your decision based upon race. Just have the integrity to say it then stand behind that decision.
Here's the write up.
There are a few interesting sound bites in this.
To me, it seems, that Powell is looking for another "cabinet" job. Yeah, him and Wesley Clark in the same cabinet....that'd go over like a turd in a punch bowl. :rolleyes:
Retired General Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.
Powell said the election of Obama would "electrify the world."
"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."
As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficult with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."
Powell, once considered likely to be the nation's first African-American presidential nominee, said his decision was not about race.
Moderator Tom Brokaw said: "There will be some ... who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American supporting another African-American because of race."
Powell, who last year gave the Arizona senator's campaign the maximum $2,300, replied: "If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this."
"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," Powell continued, speaking live in the studio. "And should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-American, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."
Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said the two men spoke for 10 minutes at 10 a.m., and that the candidate thanked Powell for his endorsement and said "he looked forward to taking advantage of his advice in the next two weeks and hopefully over the next four years."
Powell, making his 30th appearance on "Meet the Press," said he does not plan to campaign for Obama. He led into his endorsement by saying: "We've got two individuals — either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now — which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time.
"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
Powell said that he is "troubled" by the direction of the Republican Party, and said he began to doubt Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) when he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
"Not just small towns have values," he said, responding to one of Palin's signature lines.
"She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired," he said. "But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
The endorsement is likely to help Obama convince skeptical centrists that he is ready to handle the challenges of commander in chief, and undercuts McCain argument that he is better qualified on national-security issues.
McCain, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," sought to minimize the endorsement by noting his support from other former secretaries of state and retired military flag officers.
"It doesn’t come as a surprise," McCain said. "I'm very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state, well over 200 retired generals and admirals. I've admired and continue to respect Secretary Powell."
While McCain only reiterated his respect for Powell when asked about the move, others in the GOP were more candid.
One prominent conservative who knows both McCain and Powell said that for all the Secretary of State's criticism of McCain and his praise of Obama, the move had less to do with the two candidates for president than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
"Powell cares a lot about his reputation with Washington elites and he thinks he was badly damaged by his relationship with the Bush administration," said this Republican. "So this is a way to make up for what he regarded as not being treated well by the Bush administration, not being given the due deferenece he thinks he deserves."
And that Powell would make his decision known in the closing weeks of the election, as it becomes increasingly clear that Obama is the favorite, reflects a calculated political move, says this source.
"Let's be honest – do we think Powell would be doing this if Obama had been trailing six or 7 points in the polls?" the source asked, deeming Powell's endorsement "a Profile in Conventional Wisdom."
But others in the party were less dismissive, acknowledging the heft of the respected retired four-star general and the popularity he enjoys across the country.
"What that just did in one sound bite -- and I assume that sound bite will end up in an ad -- is it eliminated the experience factor," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, in an appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "How are you going to say the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former National Security Adviser, former Secretary of State was taken in?"
Powell, 71, also used his Meet the Press appearance to criticize McCain and his campaign for invoking the former domestic terrorist William Ayers.
"Sen. McCain says he a washed-up old terrorist—then why does he keep talking about him?" Powell asked.
"They're trying to connect [Obama] to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that's inappropriate," Powell said. "Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."
Powell said he has "heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion [that Obama's] a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists."
"This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point," Powell said. "We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."
Powell, a four-star Army general, was national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when George H.W. Bush was president; and was President George W. Bush’s first secretary of State.
Powell has consulted with both Obama and McCain, and the general’s camp had indicated in the past that he would not endorse.
Powell said that as he watched McCain, the Republican “was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem, and that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had."
Powell said a big job of the new president will be “conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.”
“I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward … restoring a sense of purpose,” he said.
I am going to disagree with all of you that said Powell's endorsement isn't going to make a difference. I think this is essentially the final nail in McCain's coffin. When you look at a large majority of the electorate they receive their information from 10 second sound bites on whatever network they watch, or catch the top headline of a paper, as they pass by on the street. They vote based on these things.
There are not enough people in our nation that truly take or find the time to do their own research on issues such as this. They are either too busy, or too lazy, or just not interested in politics in the grand scheme. There are also others that will not vote for a person, regardless of his capabilities, because of the party he belongs to.
Given all this, I have a hard believing that this type of person will not be influenced by Colin Powell's endorsement, especially those undecideds still left out there, especially when the sound bites are played over and over and over again.
Unless something spectacular happens in the next two weeks, I think Obama has this in the bag. The polls show the race is tightening, but at this point they are worthless when you look at the electoral map. I don't see McCain making up a 100 point deficit.
Not what I hoped to see, and I hope we as a nation can endure through the next two years at least. I have a feeling mid term elections in 2010 are going to swing the Congress back to the Republican side.
RichL025
10-19-2008, 10:18
Frankly I am very disappointed in Powell's actions. I don't have a problem with his endorsing Obama as that is his right. What I do have a problem with him stating very publicly that he wasn't going to endorse either candidate only to renege on that promise less than three weeks from the election..
According to media reports, Powell did not say he would not endorse a candidate. Powell's "camp" indicated he would not endorse. Big difference.
And I have to disagree that Powell's endorsement is not very helpful. Powell is still very well respected among centrists and undecideds, and having a former C, JCS and SecState come forward and state Obama is qualified for president is significant.
Not a dealbreaker, but I think this is another significant nail in the coffin of the political chances of a politician I have long respected, even aside from his POW experiences & other naval service. McCain should have won in 2000.
USANick7
10-19-2008, 10:47
I cannot believe it! :mad:
I was never a huge Colin Powell fan, but I never thought his judgment was this completely poor.
There is simply no justification for this choice.
In a strange way I feel betrayed...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,5405246,print.story
FYI. This is the first time the Los Angeles Times has endorsed a presidential candidate since it gave the nod to Richard Nixon in 1972.
Barack Obama for president
He is the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the nation.
October 19, 2008
It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.
We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.
The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.
Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.
These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.
John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.
Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.
Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.
He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left.
We are not sanguine about Obama's economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but would be far too small to stimulate the economy. His ideas on taxation do not stray far from those put forward by Democrats over the last several decades. His response to the most recent, and drastic, fallout of the sub- prime mortgage meltdown has been appropriately cautious; this is uncharted territory, and Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.
And that's fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.
On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.
We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.
USANick7
10-19-2008, 11:00
Just conducted a quick ODA poll
yup....betrayal was the prevalent feeling...also mentioned was stabbed in the back and punched in the gut...
When a man of his experience and background makes such a poor and contradictory choice, I am forced to think...."ulterior motive"
anythingrandom
10-19-2008, 11:36
I saw Powell speak at a university here a few months back. During Q&A, one man asked him if he would be open to accepting a position in an Obama administration. Powell replied with something along the lines of "when the president of the United States asks you any question, you think about it long and hard." After hearing that answer, the tone of his voice indicated his endorsement to me. I'm shocked it took this long for him to admit it.
He was also not very complimentary of President Bush's judgement, citing Bush's opinion of Putin as an example, among others.
He stated that one day, he was working for the most powerful man in the world, with a private jet and the authority to make relationships for our nation, and the next day "Condi" took his plane.
He was sent off with a standing ovation, excluding a few upstarts who refused to applaud or stand. He also then invited the soldiers, who had arrived early to get front-row seats, to stand and be recognized. The auditorium went wild with applause and cheers, and the same upstarts remained seated. I was hot with anger.
Just a small tangent. I wish I had posted this encounter after that evening, to get some opinions and watch the story unfold.
Mosby Raider
10-19-2008, 12:05
I lost all respect for Powell as a result of his failure to come forward and acknowledge that Armitage was the initial "leaker" of Valerie Plame's name to the media. His inaction gave the MSM more ammunition with which to hound the Bush administration, creat more BDS, and IMO led to Scooter Libby's legal difficulties.
Like many of you, I am not happy with General Powell's decision to endorse Senator Obama. My umbrage was not off set by the fact that I agreed with portions of the general's criticisms of Senator McCain's campaign. I do not agree that the general's disappointment in one's party should lead to the endorsement of the other party's candidate.
I would be interested to learn to what extent the general put the word out that he wanted Senator McCain's campaign to have a different tenor. If General Powell attempted to reach out to the McCain campaign and was repeatedly rebuffed, that would explain (if not excuse) his comments today.
I do think that regardless of the outcome in November, Republicans need to figure out how to talk about some of the divisions in our party that Senator Obama has exaggerated and exploited.
greenberetTFS
10-19-2008, 14:10
I cannot believe it! :mad:
I was never a huge Colin Powell fan, but I never thought his judgment was this completely poor.
There is simply no justification for this choice.
In a strange way I feel betrayed...
I was a Colin Powell fan,and would never have thought his judgement would go in this direction. :( I also feel betrayed.....
I believe it's a racial issue...... :( He said several weeks ago he would not indorse either one. I've lost all my respect for Mr. Powell. :(
GB TFS
Surf n Turf
10-19-2008, 16:56
Selling your honor rather cheaply ---
SnT
Where are the inexperienced, white liberals Powell has endorsed?
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.”--------------------------
Let’s breakdown Powell’s endorsement for a minute. If he claims he’s not backing Obama just because he’s black, that means Powell must be backing Obama for another reason. So, we believe it’s then safe to assume that Powell shares the following with Obama:
1. He mocks working class Americans like Joe the Plumber
2. He believes in meeting unconditionally with rogue leaders
3. He feels Midwesterners are bitter and cling to guns and religion
4. He can’t believe the price of arugula at Whole Foods
5. He wants hard working Americans to turn over their income for redistribution
6. He sees no problem flip-flopping on important issues like FISA, campaign finance reform, drilling, or whatever the polls are saying this week
7. He has no qualms about not only associating with hatemongers like Jeremiah Wright or unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers, but also lying about the relationships he has with them, before lying about what he lied about today in an ever-changing circle of lies on the subject
8. He thinks nothing’s wrong with dirty Chicago politics and dealings with people like convicted felon Tony Rezko
9. He doesn’t see the need to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem and show proper respect for American traditions
10. He wouldn’t have visited troops in the hospital in Germany or Iraq either, because no cameras were allowed in there
We do not believe for a moment that Powell would have endorsed a white man or woman who had even one of the above attached to them —
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/
I think the GOP is falling into a bad form previously the domain of the Democratic Party. If we don't like someone's decision, we attack that person's logic by our standards. And if it doesn't pass our standards, we're then free to interpret the initial decision any way we like.
I listened to General Powell's comments very closely this morning. His argument was essentially the same as Christopher Buckley's (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229515&postcount=13). While Mr. Buckley caught a tidal wave of criticism, no one accused him of making his endorsement based upon his or Senator Obama's race.
I strongly disagree with General Powell's decision to support Senator Obama. That being said, I believe that General Powell made a sustainable argument why he was disappointed with McCain's campaign and its current tone.
As much as we may lament General Powell's decision, his analysis of the two candidates, and his criticisms of the GOP, I respectfully suggest that we, as individuals and as a party, will be better off addressing the issues he raised rather than finding excuses to attack his character by suggesting that he's a liar and that he's a racist. These conclusions are exactly the types of traps the Democrats have crafted for us to fall into.
Marvin Blank
10-19-2008, 21:21
I think the GOP is falling into a bad form previously the domain of the Democratic Party. If we don't like someone's decision, we attack that person's logic by our standards. And if it doesn't pass our standards, we're then free to interpret the initial decision any way we like.
I listened to General Powell's comments very closely this morning. His argument was essentially the same as Christopher Buckley's (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229515&postcount=13). While Mr. Buckley caught a tidal wave of criticism, no one accused him of making his endorsement based upon his or Senator Obama's race.
I strongly disagree with General Powell's decision to support Senator Obama. That being said, I believe that General Powell made a sustainable argument why he was disappointed with McCain's campaign and its current tone.
As much as we may lament General Powell's decision, his analysis of the two candidates, and his criticisms of the GOP, I respectfully suggest that we, as individuals and as a party, will be better off addressing the issues he raised rather than finding excuses to attack his character by suggesting that he's a liar and that he's a racist. These conclusions are exactly the types of traps the Democrats have crafted for us to fall into.
+1
I watched the segment with Colin Powell's explanation as to why he was voting for Senator Obama. He didn't say anybody else should, only why he had made his choice. FWIW, I met him in Europe in 1990 and 1991 when he and Secretary of State Baker came and briefed us at the AmEmbassy-Bonn during the build-up to GW1. Both were and remain respected within those communities. I personally view him as an intelligent and honorable man, wish I could express myself half as eloquently as he does, and respect him to this day.
It was evident to me that he was painfully disappointed in the direction the GOP leadership had chosen to go in this campaign and that he was distancing himself from them. I, too, am not pleased with the GOP...especially with its spending and redundant governmental growth...and have some strong issues with John McCain, but will never vote for BHO. I don't trust him, I don't think he has or will ever take responsibility for any actions on his part, I won't vote for anybody who wastes our tax dollars with 'pet project' riders to budget bills, and I don't think he can come close to living up to the expectations of his adherants--and the repercussions of that one worry me.
However, I am an American first, have seen this country survive under a myriad of political hooligans, and will live with whomever we, as a nation choose to represent us--I just hope the rest of the world will be as understanding and give us the same chances we want to give our next President.
And to me, the scariest thing about all this is that no matter who wins the Presidency, Speaker Pellosi will most likely remain 3rd in line of presidential succession. :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
USANick7
10-20-2008, 02:04
I think the GOP is falling into a bad form previously the domain of the Democratic Party. If we don't like someone's decision, we attack that person's logic by our standards. And if it doesn't pass our standards, we're then free to interpret the initial decision any way we like.
I listened to General Powell's comments very closely this morning. His argument was essentially the same as Christopher Buckley's (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229515&postcount=13). While Mr. Buckley caught a tidal wave of criticism, no one accused him of making his endorsement based upon his or Senator Obama's race.
I strongly disagree with General Powell's decision to support Senator Obama. That being said, I believe that General Powell made a sustainable argument why he was disappointed with McCain's campaign and its current tone.
As much as we may lament General Powell's decision, his analysis of the two candidates, and his criticisms of the GOP, I respectfully suggest that we, as individuals and as a party, will be better off addressing the issues he raised rather than finding excuses to attack his character by suggesting that he's a liar and that he's a racist. These conclusions are exactly the types of traps the Democrats have crafted for us to fall into.
Sigba I agree with you in part, but here is where I see a difference...
We attacking our "premise" as much as we are their "logic" because we understand "logic" from a respect of absolutes...
We are attacking their position from the premise that if you use words like "substance" to describe a candidate that is clearly devoid of any, than there is a contradiction.
We expect that a man that has claimed certain beliefs actually believes in them, and therefore would not choose in favor of the complete opposite, when given the opportunity.
All of these complaints are logical. What "seems" illogical is Powell's choice, given Powell's experience, education, and stated positions.
Therefore, if such a choice appears "illogical" we attempt to change our premise in order to make the decision a "logical" one.
So we are not really attacking his logic, as much as we are scrambling to understand how a man of his knowledge and experience could make such a poor and apparently contradictory decision.
I will not speculate on the race issue. But I do wonder what sort of back door dealings might have been done to secure this endorsement.
I will simply say that if I am to take Powell completely at his word, that Powell truly believes that Obama is a man of substance, than my understanding of his intelligence was completely mistaken.
If I am to assume that his intelligence was intact, and that such an endorsement was made for more mercenary reasons, than his character as I understood it was completely mistaken...
And if I am to believe that he truly just believes that Obama's charisma is enough to circumvent all of his weaknesses, than it it is Powell's judgment that I have been completely mistaken about.
So there is my logical breakdown of this endorsement.
RichL025
10-20-2008, 07:11
I will simply say that if I am to take Powell completely at his word, that Powell truly believes that Obama is a man of substance, than my understanding of his intelligence was completely mistaken.
If I am to assume that his intelligence was intact, and that such an endorsement was made for more mercenary reasons, than his character as I understood it was completely mistaken...
And if I am to believe that he truly just believes that Obama's charisma is enough to circumvent all of his weaknesses, than it it is Powell's judgment that I have been completely mistaken about.
So there is my logical breakdown of this endorsement.
You left out one possible scenario that comes to mind... that intelligent people can disagree on the best course of action.
That implies neither a deficiency of intelligence, character, or judgment.
To deny that there are SOME people out there who have arrived at a competing ideology than yours (ie, liberalism) without a deficit of character, intelligence, etc, is a little narrow-minded itself. I may disagree with those people, but I understand that (the few of them who actually thought things through) they have arrived at those conclusions honestly.
Defender968
10-20-2008, 09:12
I cannot believe it! :mad:
I was never a huge Colin Powell fan, but I never thought his judgment was this completely poor.
There is simply no justification for this choice.
In a strange way I feel betrayed...
I was a Colin Powell fan,and would never have thought his judgement would go in this direction. :( I also feel betrayed.....
I believe it's a racial issue...... :( He said several weeks ago he would not indorse either one. I've lost all my respect for Mr. Powell. :(GB TFS
I have to agree with you both, as I watched Mr. Powell’s interview on the news I was deeply disappointed, he was a man I respected, yet to see him endorse BHO I felt betrayed as well, I found myself saying you’re selling out your brothers in uniform for what, for a transformational leader, really… are you kidding me?!?
That’s about like when my AF commander, a Major who I respect said he was going to vote for BHO because he was voting for hope, I looked him squarely in the eye and said “Sir you’ve got to be kidding me, you’re voting for hope, why not just vote for the magic ferry of prosperity, respectfully sir hope is not a plan.”
Certainly a man with Mr. Powell’s intelligence can see through BHO’s BS, he has to be able to see that his transformation will cost the military dearly as it’s the only pot of money big enough to pay for his socialism, he has to be able to see the flaws in his direction on foreign policy, and his completely socialistic plans for domestic policy, yet he endorses him because he is a transformational leader… I can only come to one conclusion; Mr. Powell’s decision is being driven by something else, what it is I don’t know definitively. I’d like to think that it’s not just race, though I still wonder. I know he was a odds with President Bush when he was Sec of State, could he be that bitter that he’s willing to endorse BHO out of spite, it’s possible but I find it unlikely, could it be he’s just trying to buy his way into another Cabinet position, I find that more likely, but after being the CJCS and the Sec State how much more ambition could any man really have, honestly he’s accomplished so much what else would he have to do to satisfy himself. So that just leaves the race card, and while I hate to bring it up, I’ve seen in my military career especially in the last year how deep the race issue goes, so I have to wonder if that is driving Mr. Powell’s decision.
Defender--
Did not General Powell list specific issues he had with McCain's campaign as well as with McCain himself? Were not some of these issues the same issues that had been matters of concern to Republicans before the RNC?
Could it be that General Powell meant what he said by putting the country first and he views his endorsement as an attempt to mend the rifts that this overly-long campaign has caused?
The Democratic Party wants Americans to believe that there's no place for racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity in the GOP. Does the unsupported speculation that Powell based his decision on race help that argument?
So that just leaves the race card, and while I hate to bring it up, I’ve seen in my military career especially in the last year how deep the race issue goes, so I have to wonder if that is driving Mr. Powell’s decision.
Did not General Powell list specific issues he had with McCain's campaign as well as with McCain himself? Were not some of these issues the same issues that had been matters of concern to Republicans before the RNC?
Bob Schieffer--whom I know personally and is the one reporter out there who I respect and trust--has pretty much said the same thing...and I have to agree with him.
However, one has to admire--for lack of a better word off the top of my head here--how smooth BHO is in his rhetoric in comparison to that of JMcC and SP. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be--unless they check out the record of what he has actually done!
In words, BHO is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent his years promoting polatization, because that is what a so-called "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment. Those of us who went through the military's RREO programs of the 70's know what I mean here and exactly how that works. But community organizers--e.g., BHO, the Reverands Wright and Pfleger, et al--work to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayer's money or to do things like force banks to lend to people they don't deem to be good risks.
And as BHO moved beyond the role of community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in other roles--such as promoting programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools (along with ex-SDS leader Bill Ayers), supporting the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger, donating $$$ to support the grievance and resentment ideology of the Reverand Jeremiah Wright, and providing govt $$ to support the grievance and the resentment ideology of ACORN (y'all should have listened to the head of ACORN try to defend their fradulent activities with the "we've been disenfranchised" mantra on PBS radio this morning). :eek:
I agree with Bob Schieffer's assessment of why Colin Powell did what he did and I respect Mr Powell's right to express his opinion--but I will never vote for the "Wizard of Oz" likes of the BHOs of this world. I refuse to heed his admonition of, "Pay no attention to that man standing behind the curtain!"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
How the Powell Endorsement Boosts Obama
Mark Halperin, Time
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851832,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly
In one of the most important symbolic moments of the general election, former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced today that he is endorsing Barack Obama for president. Making his decision public on NBC News' "Meet the Press," the long-time fixture in Republican administrations effectively reinforced the sense of momentum Obama has been building, declaring the Senator from Illinois as a "transformational figure." "I think that Senator Obama brings a fresh set of eyes, a fresh set of ideas to the table," said Powell. "I think we need a generational change, and I think Senator Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America, and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society."
Sources say Obama courted Powell's support for well over a year, with private discussions that have largely involved policy consultations, but also some explicit pleas for support. Powell's neutrality up until now had worried some Republicans, and a possible nod for Obama has been rumored and discussed for months. Whenever he has been asked in public about Obama, Powell has had nothing but kind words but, before his appearnace on Meet the Press, always stopped short of a full endorsement.
The decision is not only symbolic but, in terms of timing, one of great tactical importance. Powell is a brand unto himself in American politics, and clearly transcends the media's tendency to hype endorsements more than their actual importance to voters. However, the indisputable benefit that Powell brings Obama is that the former Secretary of State and general is sure to block out any chance McCain has of winning the next two or three days of news coverage, as the media swoons over the implications of the choice. It is simple political math: McCain has 15 days to close a substantial gap, and he will now lose at least one fifth of his total remaining time.
Powell's decision brings other clear benefits as well. He is so trusted for his judgment on national security (even in the wake of his role in the current Iraq War) that his confidence in Obama to become commander-in-chief will resonate with many elites and voters. The Democrats' ability to play the Powell card for the next two weeks makes it much harder, even if there is an unexpected international crisis, for Republicans to suggest Obama simply isn't qualified to protect the country. Powell reinforced Obama's qualifications on "Meet the Press": "Senator Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country."
If some voters still see Obama as a nebulous, unknown figure with questionable associations and liberal tendencies that makes them wary of voting for an African-American, Powell's decision may ease their minds. In some ways his image is the perfect complement to Obama's. Unlike the newly arrived Obama, Powell has been an establishment figure of vast experience in the national spotlight for well over a decade on military and international affairs, first as a career Army man, then in a variety of national security roles, culminating in his service as Secretary of State.
When Powell considered his own run for president in 1995, his political advisers found that there was an extraordinarily wide and deep well of support for the retired general as a political figure. In fact, by some standards, before Obama, Powell was the most successful African-American politician of the last two decades, without ever actually seeking elective office. Even after being tied to the Bush administration and its widely disliked foreign policy decisions, Powell has maintained extraordinary popularity, with nearly three quarters of Americans continuing to view him favorably, in part because he is perceived as a non-partisan figure, almost above politics.
Finally, Powell long ago cast his lot with the Republican Party, even though he is known to have disagreements with the GOP on some social issues. He has been a powerful speaker at party events, and one of the truly powerful symbols the party has had to deploy. His crossover endorsement is Obama's biggest yet from a Republican and fuels many of the Democrat's regular themes: Obama is the future and McCain the past; Obama — and his party — can be trusted on national security, Bush mishandled the Iraq conflict; and other Republicans (and independents) should be comfortable supporting the man from Illinois.
Powell will not become a full-throated partisan on Obama's behalf, but the two are now joined symbolically. It is most similar to Senator Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in February, which garnered extraordinary news coverage at a critical moment and broke the spirits of the opposition. Like Kennedy, Powell is a larger than life figure who commands a wide following. Powell says he will not campaign actively for Obama , but he does not need to. His words on Sunday were more than enough.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
10-20-2008, 11:02
"Like Kennedy...larger than life."
Yeah, but I think GEN Powell has a way to go to get that big.
TR
Surf n Turf
10-20-2008, 11:56
I think the GOP is falling into a bad form previously the domain of the Democratic Party. If we don't like someone's decision, we attack that person's logic by our standards. And if it doesn't pass our standards, we're then free to interpret the initial decision any way we like.
I respectfully suggest that we, as individuals and as a party, will be better off addressing the issues he raised rather than finding excuses to attack his character by suggesting that he's a liar and that he's a racist. These conclusions are exactly the types of traps the Democrats have crafted for us to fall into.
Sigba, Thank you for your sage political insight.
Colin Powel is viewed by many to be the guy who should have been the first black President, the guy who’s reputation was nearly destroyed by Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rove & Tenet, and the guy who’s judgment (with one important exception) was beyond reproach. His well-timed endorsement, along with all the rest, will have an impact on the election, especially with his “trashing” of John McCain. I have my own problems with McCain based on POW issues, but I never thought I’d see a respected General support a radical leftist over someone with McCain’s record
SnT
Powell's Endorsement the Product of Months of Strategizing
Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday by employing the military doctrine that bears his name. With a keen sense of timing, the 71-year-old retired general tried to bring maximum firepower and a strong grasp of the tactical landscape to bear on the campaign, leaning into the race after months of silence on his own time table, with forces (in this case, words) he spent weeks and even months preparing; and on ground that was most advantageous to his cause. As the fall approached and Powell began to prepare his endorsement, he had long eyed late October as the best moment to strike: he wanted to wait until after the debates were over before offering his considered assessment.
Finally, Powell chose to make his statement on the NBC's venerable Meet The Press, where he could be guaranteed both a large audience and the uninterrupted time to make the kind of remarks he had spent hours preparing.
Powell was trying to leave two impressions above all: that he believes Obama is ready to be commander in chief. And he believes that Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, is not.
Powell informed neither candidate in advance about what he was going to say.
That, too, was in part to maintain the element of surprise — another bit of the old general's doctrine at work.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1851966,00.html
"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," Powell continued, speaking live in the studio. "And should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-American, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14714.html
In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.
I watched him (Obama) during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one.
I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.
And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign.
I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I'm confident, with people who'll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/
alright4u
10-20-2008, 12:11
I cannot believe it! :mad:
I was never a Colin Powell fan, but I never thought his judgment was this completely poor.
There is simply no justification for this choice.
In a strange way I feel betrayed...
Neither was I, especially in late 73 during during the race riots in the 2nd ID. The 3rd BDE was mech Inf with the 4th of the 7th CAV, Powell had the BN that had one company on the DMZ. He could not deal with his own race riots . It took an SF SGM.
Defender968
10-20-2008, 19:19
Defender--
The Democratic Party wants Americans to believe that there's no place for racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity in the GOP. Does the unsupported speculation that Powell based his decision on race help that argument?
Sigaba, respectfully I am not in the habit of speculating without support, if you look at my profile you'll see I am an LEO, while you study history, I study the human condition in the world’s classroom. My statement was based on my experience in interrogating people, in listening to what people say, especially when they are spinning things or are downright lying and then finding the truth.
What I have been trained to do, and have practiced for years is listening when people talk, hearing what they say, how they say it, and also what they don't say, and then distilling it down, and combining it with what I already know in order to clear out the BullSh#@, and reveal the truth.
Now with that being said I have personally seen honorable and high ranking men in the military lose their minds and their honor over issues of race; that along with my LEO background is my experience. You won't find it in books, but it is valid none the less.
Now let me tell you what I got out of Gen Powell’s interview.
The first thing that screamed out to me was this quote
I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years.
Ok so he's got heartburn with where the Republican Party is going, then be part of the solution, he's got the clout and the ability. That's not a reason to vote for the most liberal member of the senate and lest qualified presidential candidate ever but let me not get ahead of myself.
Second, thing that caught my eye,
I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far. America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don't finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don't finish high school. We've got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose.
While I agree with him that education is important, specifically kids dropping out of high school is much more heavily weighted to affect African Americans than any other race, but maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe he just really cares about education I can go with that, let’s keep looking.
Let’s look at the history side, General Powell has stated that he has known and respected Sen McCain for 25 years, and he now knows Sen Obama for 2 years, and in his opinion his judgment is sound after watching him talk about the economy for the past 7 weeks. I find that a bit interesting. General Powell stated:
And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both.
Now granted I don't have anywhere near as much experience in politics and/or the military as General Powell, however I have heard many commanders talk nice about their intentions, but with the experience I do have I've always reserved judgment to see if their actions support their words. Now General Powell would have us believe that in the last 7 weeks he's seen Sen Obama's judgment, yet he's had to make no real calls, he's simply had to figure out what to say to court more voters, sounds nice but the proof is in the pudding, could it be that General Powell wanted to see Sen Obama's judgment as being good for some reason, it's possible, I've seen many people convince themselves of things because they wanted to believe it. Let’s keep looking.
I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.
So what he is saying is that he thinks Mr. Obama is a smart guy and that's enough to be a good president, not exactly the only qualification I’d want for the commander and chief but maybe General Powell has more faith than I do.
General Powell also said he thought that Sen. Obama had a better grasp of the problems with the economy than Sen McCain, yet Sen Obama said in the second debate he will continue on with all of his programs even with the economy tanking, this will in fact raise Gov spending, Sen Obama has also said in the last 6 weeks that by pulling the troops out of Iraq that money could be used for his other programs, so he'll keep on spending, and yet will lower taxes on 95% of Americans, those numbers don't work out unless you slash the military budget and even then I'm not sure they'll work out, so how does that show good judgment, the fact that he said it smoothly and confidently, I believe General Powell is smarter than that, worse than that he knows how bad things were under Clinton, Clinton's do more with less gutted the military even while deploying us more than any previous president every wonder why there wasn't enough body armor back at the beginning of OIF, thank Clinton's budget cuts, and BHO will do the same. So to know this is coming as I have to believe General Powell does and to look the other way that's pretty big to me, but let’s assume General Powell is totally blinded and hasn't run the numbers let’s keep looking at what General Powell said.
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign.
I guess Sen Obama is inclusive, as long as you're voting for him and agreeing with him, otherwise he either sues you, threatens to sue you, or sends his "truth squads" after you. That's not holding so much water either, and a man of General Powells stature, politics and personal beliefs aside would see these acts for what they are, but maybe again he's seeing what he wants to see.
I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure.
This statement to me says, hey he speaks eloquently and I believe in what he's peddling, and more importantly he can CHANGE things, that's what transformational means. Ok so what change is it that General Powell after, he's been a republican for years, and hasn't in all those years wanted to drive us towards the kind of socialism that Sen Obama is offering, so what is the change that he wants, to go further to the left, if that's what General Powell wanted why did he not change his party affiliation to democrat, or perhaps it is a change in the quote on quote status quo?
Continued
Defender968
10-20-2008, 19:28
Continued.....
I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I'm confident, with people who'll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
So General Powell here admits BHO doesn't have the experience he needs but is surrounding himself with people who do, like Gen Clark and Gen McPeak. I'll just leave it there.
Sigaba the quote below alone lends itself, knowing all of the above to wonder how much weight race had in General Powell’s decision. You see when people talk they can spin things a little or a lot, usually based primarily on their level of intelligence and on their experience at successfully spinning things, but most often even when people spin things they do so within the boundaries of their own views, beliefs, and experiences. The greater their intelligence and experience the better they usually are at spinning things, but if you listen closely they will give you little tidbits of the truth, if you can pick out the bits of truth you can connect the dots. This to me feels like a tidbit of truth, just as Sen Obama's comment about trying to spread the wealth around when talking to Joe the plumber and Sen Obama's quip about those who "cling" to their guns and religion were tidbits of truth.
I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.
Proud of what is my question, electing a man who is in fact the least unqualified man in US history to seek the White house, or proud to elect a man who speaks real nice but is peddling thinly veiled socialism to be the POTUS? Or maybe I suppose we should just be proud that the above man if he gets elected is a minority. Maybe I'll be so proud I'll forget about worrying about his qualifications or lack of experience, his disturbing ties to unsavory characters or his socialist agenda.
You call my statement, "unsupported speculation" I call it calling a spade a spade based on my real world experience.
Defender--
In retrospect and with respect, I think my post may have come across as putting you on the spot more than I intended. I most certainly was not privileging my experiences over yours. To clarify, by 'unsupported speculation' I was writing from the perspective of one who prefers to see an established pattern of behavior and thought before concluding that a person has a personality flaw such as racism.
I appreciate and understand the argument you lay out for suggesting that the issue of race played a larger factor in General Powell's endorsement than I believe that it did. Your point about having seen people "lose their minds and their honor" over race is profound; in the coming days I'll be thinking about that statement long and hard. That being said, I do think that we may soon reach a point where we will simply disagree on this specific point. I want you to know that my respect for you and my careful consideration of your posts will not change.
For those of us who have profound issues with Obama's qualifications and character (and here you and I are in agreement), it will be difficult to accept Powell's logic. Rather than trying to vet Powell's argument for supporting Senator Obama, I am simply trying to urge people on this forum to consider General Powell's criticisms of the GOP, McCain, and McCain's campaign. Ultimately, regardless of next month's outcome, we Republicans may be over due for some self-criticism.
The Reaper
10-21-2008, 09:39
Defender--
In retrospect and with respect, I think my post may have come across as putting you on the spot more than I intended. I most certainly was not privileging my experiences over yours.
I appreciate and understand the argument you lay out for suggesting that the issue of race played a larger factor in General Powell's endorsement than I believe that it did. Your point about having seen people "lose their minds and their honor" over race is profound; in the coming days I'll be thinking about that statement long and hard. That being said, I do think that we may soon reach a point where we will simply disagree on this specific point. And I want you to know that my respect for you and my careful consideration of your posts will not change.
For those of us who have profound issues with Obama's qualifications and character (and here you and I are in agreement), it will be difficult to accept Powell's logic. Rather than trying to vet Powell's argument for supporting Senator Obama, I am simply trying to urge people on this forum to consider General Powell's criticisms of the GOP, McCain, and McCain's campaign. Ultimately, regardless of next month's outcome, we Republicans may be over due for some self-criticism.
Sigaba:
You were not here for the primary season.
I think if you review the posts from that period, you will see that there was a lot of introspection among members here, plenty of criticism for the party and candidates, and that everyone acknowledged that this was going to be a choice between two evils. Most people I know and associate with would, given a truly competitive race with viable candidates, opt for the Libertarian viewpoint and candidate (less the schools and roads issues).
IMHO, I believe that Obaba, his naive, liberal, socialist, utopian viewpoints (and the Obamamaniacs) represent a significant threat to this country, her freedoms, and potentially her survival, sufficient to warrant spirited support of John McCain.
TR
greenberetTFS
10-21-2008, 10:00
Bob Schieffer--whom I know personally and is the one reporter out there who I respect and trust--has pretty much said the same thing...and I have to agree with him.
However, one has to admire--for lack of a better word off the top of my head here--how smooth BHO is in his rhetoric in comparison to that of JMcC and SP. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be--unless they check out the record of what he has actually done!
In words, BHO is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent his years promoting polatization, because that is what a so-called "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment. Those of us who went through the military's RREO programs of the 70's know what I mean here and exactly how that works. But community organizers--e.g., BHO, the Reverands Wright and Pfleger, et al--work to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayer's money or to do things like force banks to lend to people they don't deem to be good risks.
And as BHO moved beyond the role of community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in other roles--such as promoting programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools (along with ex-SDS leader Bill Ayers), supporting the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger, donating $$$ to support the grievance and resentment ideology of the Reverand Jeremiah Wright, and providing govt $$ to support the grievance and the resentment ideology of ACORN (y'all should have listened to the head of ACORN try to defend their fradulent activities with the "we've been disenfranchised" mantra on PBS radio this morning). :eek:
I agree with Bob Schieffer's assessment of why Colin Powell did what he did and I respect Mr Powell's right to express his opinion--but I will never vote for the "Wizard of Oz" likes of the BHOs of this world. I refuse to heed his admonition of, "Pay no attention to that man standing behind the curtain!"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
+1 :D
GB TFS :munchin
Sigaba:
You were not here for the primary season.
I think if you review the posts from that period, you will see that there was a lot of introspection among members here, plenty of criticism for the party and candidates, and that everyone acknowledged that this was going to be a choice between two evils. Most people I know and associate with would, given a truly competitive race with viable candidates, opt for the Libertarian viewpoint and candidate (less the schools and roads issues).
IMHO, I believe that Obaba, his naive, liberal, socialist, utopian viewpoints (and the Obamamaniacs) represent a significant threat to this country, her freedoms, and potentially her survival, sufficient to warrant spirited support of John McCain.
TR
Sir--
Understood. From my initial search on the discussions on this forum during the primary season, I had concluded that McCain was not a popular choice here and that support for him was provisional. I did not realize how controversial he was.
For what it is worth, I agree with your views about an Obama presidency.
Respectfully,
S
I see comedy in this,
Obama on the war............ bad choice, would never have voted for it. Hillary you failed the American people in voting for that war.
Biden on the War.............. I voted for it.
Powell on the War............ This is why we need to go to war.
Does anyone else see the comedy?
The Reaper
10-21-2008, 10:34
I see comedy in this,
Obama on the war............ bad choice, would never have voted for it. Hillary you failed the American people in voting for that war.
Biden on the War.............. I voted for it.
Powell on the War............ This is why we need to go to war.
Does anyone else see the comedy?
The American People...........What war?
TR
USANick7
10-21-2008, 11:17
The American People...........What war?
TR
I actually wish they were saying "what war"...maybe then hey wouldn't all presume to tell me how to fight it.
It seems that unless one can make a compelling case that Americas very survival is in question, not within 10 years, but in 10 months, about 60% of the American people simply aren't concerned enough to really study the issue. They always have an opinion on the issue, regardless of knowledge or experience...
Too many Americans have demonstrated that they have enough "support" to get us into the war, but not enough to see it through.
So for the next war I have to fight...I hope those Americans, ESPECIALLY liberals just switch the channel to "House" and let us fight the war in peace...
USANick7
10-21-2008, 11:32
Nice piece of analysis Defender!:lifter
Defender968
10-21-2008, 12:07
Defender--
In retrospect and with respect, I think my post may have come across as putting you on the spot more than I intended. I most certainly was not privileging my experiences over yours. To clarify, by 'unsupported speculation' I was writing from the perspective of one who prefers to see an established pattern of behavior and thought before concluding that a person has a personality flaw such as racism.
I appreciate and understand the argument you lay out for suggesting that the issue of race played a larger factor in General Powell's endorsement than I believe that it did. Your point about having seen people "lose their minds and their honor" over race is profound; in the coming days I'll be thinking about that statement long and hard. That being said, I do think that we may soon reach a point where we will simply disagree on this specific point. I want you to know that my respect for you and my careful consideration of your posts will not change.
For those of us who have profound issues with Obama's qualifications and character (and here you and I are in agreement), it will be difficult to accept Powell's logic. Rather than trying to vet Powell's argument for supporting Senator Obama, I am simply trying to urge people on this forum to consider General Powell's criticisms of the GOP, McCain, and McCain's campaign. Ultimately, regardless of next month's outcome, we Republicans may be over due for some self-criticism.
Sigaba the tone of your initial message did come across as somewhat condescending and personally I would be careful in insinuating that someone’s views on this board are unsupported speculation without looking at their profile and considering where they have been, I would be especially careful to do so without some questions first on the background of those views. Just my .02.
Now, no harm no fowl, you're entitled to your opinion just as I am and I'm a big boy I can take criticism, I simply will respond when challenged. Believe me I wish I could just not see what I see, but unfortunately I can't and I'm not afraid to call the baby ugly when it is. I don't look at anything and take it for face value, call it a professional holdover from being a cop. Also understand I'm not calling General Powell a racist, a racist has negative views of other races, and I would not presume to suggest that about General Powell without conclusive data to support it, I'm simply suggesting that his decision to support BHO is based on a deeply seated Afro-centric mindset that I have personally witnessed across rank, age, gender, and socio-economic class in a large majority of African Americans I have encountered in my personal life, and both my LE and Military careers.
Defender968
10-21-2008, 12:10
Sigaba:
IMHO, I believe that Obaba, his naive, liberal, socialist, utopian viewpoints (and the Obamamaniacs) represent a significant threat to this country, her freedoms, and potentially her survival, sufficient to warrant spirited support of John McCain.
TR
Completely agree TR, well said.
Nice piece of analysis Defender!:lifter
Thanks
This is pretty much my point-of-view of the entire process during this election. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Sigaba the tone of your initial message did come across as somewhat condescending and personally I would be careful in insinuating that someone’s views on this board are unsupported speculation without looking at their profile and considering where they have been, I would be especially careful to do so without some questions first on the background of those views. Just my .02.
Defender, thank you for your candor and your guidance. My writing skills are a work in progress. I occasionally come across a bit more, ah, energetically, than I intend.
mend the rifts that this overly-long campaign has caused?
Before we get caught up in a tsunami of historical revisionism, let's recall why this campaign has been overly-long. Both Obama and Clinton were actively campaigning since 2006. Both made their formal announcements in January of 2007, almost two years ago! If this campaign is overly-long, who is responsible for that?
General Powell is not happy with the way the Republicans have run the campaign. "He is troubled by Republican party's attacks on Obama", and "this is the time to reach out.” “He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama." “…somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this." “(the )inclusive nature of his campaign.”
What a load. He’s supporting Obama because he’s got to know him over the few months? What does he know that we don’t? His campaign is inclusive??? It’s time to reach out?? What does that even mean? He’s troubled by the Republican attacks. Please. This guy is so full of it. Why don’t we address the elephant in the room and talk about the reality of this campaign. Right after Senator McCain appointed Gov. Palin as his running mate, the leading article in the front page of my local paper said, ”Obama to make changes in his campaign.” Front page, leading story. Since that time, almost every issue has a positive story about Obama or a negative one about McCain. Not in the editorial section, but in the news section. You see, all the national news in our paper comes through the wire service: NYT, AP etc. Why do the republicans have to go after Obama? Because the main stream media will not. Joe Biden steps on his crank, and nothing. Joe the plumber opens his mouth and he’s investigated like he’s a black Supreme Court justice nominee. If Powell is troubled, it should be about the lack of objective reporting in news which greatly diminishes the freedom of the press .
"(Palin) She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired," he said. "But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
And Joe Biden is ready? And Obama is ready? Additionally, his platform smacks of New Dealism which has been around for a long time. So what is this new generation stuff? Sounds like it lacks substance.
Finally we get to the truth:
"Powell cares a lot about his reputation with Washington elites and he thinks he was badly damaged by his relationship with the Bush administration," said this Republican. "So this is a way to make up for what he regarded as not being treated well by the Bush administration, not being given the due deference he thinks he deserves."
And that Powell would make his decision known in the closing weeks of the election, as it becomes increasingly clear that Obama is the favorite, reflects a calculated political move, says this source. "Let's be honest – do we think Powell would be doing this if Obama had been trailing six or 7 points in the polls?" the source asked, deeming Powell's endorsement "a Profile in Conventional Wisdom." I believe Obama and Powell have a lot in common. They both are superior opportunist and I don’t mean that as a complement.
Sir--
I was describing a matter of fact without explicit or implicit intent of suggesting who is or is not responsible for the length of the campaign.
Respectfully, I would suggest that the study of history is inherently a practice of revisionism.
I absolutely agree with your point that the MSM, the Democratic Party, and many Americans have given Senator Obama kid glove treatment. It is only because of this sustained lack of serious critical scrutiny that Senator Obama can appear to be so many different things to so many different groups of people.
Before we get caught up in a tsunami of historical revisionism, let's recall why this campaign has been overly-long. Both Obama and Clinton were actively campaigning since 2006. Both made their formal announcements in January of 2007, almost two years ago! If this campaign is overly-long, who is responsible for that?
Why don’t we address the elephant in the room and talk about the reality of this campaign. Right after Senator McCain appointed Gov. Palin as his running mate, the leading article in the front page of my local paper said, ”Obama to make changes in his campaign.” Front page, leading story. Since that time, almost every issue has a positive story about Obama or a negative one about McCain. Not in the editorial section, but in the news section. You see, all the national news in our paper comes through the wire service: NYT, AP etc. Why do the republicans have to go after Obama? Because the main stream media will not. Joe Biden steps on his crank, and nothing. Joe the plumber opens his mouth and he’s investigated like he’s a black Supreme Court justice nominee. If Powell is troubled, it should be about the lack of objective reporting in news which greatly diminishes the freedom of the press.
And Joe Biden is ready? And Obama is ready? Additionally, his platform smacks of New Dealism which has been around for a long time. So what is this new generation stuff? Sounds like it lacks substance.
Finally we get to the truth:
I believe Obama and Powell have a lot in common. They both are superior opportunist and I don’t mean that as a complement.
IMHO, I believe that Obaba, his naive, liberal, socialist, utopian viewpoints (and the Obamamaniacs) represent a significant threat to this country, her freedoms, and potentially her survival, sufficient to warrant spirited support of John McCain.
I agree, sir. But if all we are ever given are choices of the lesser evil, we will eventually reach evil, regardless. I am afraid our future choices will involve much, much more than "spirited support" for a candidate. And my great fear is that we will choose security over true freedom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
October 22, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Moved by a Crescent
By MAUREEN DOWD
Colin Powell had been bugged by many things in his party’s campaign this fall: the insidious merging of rumors that Barack Obama was Muslim with intimations that he was a terrorist sympathizer; the assertion that Sarah Palin was ready to be president; the uniformed sheriff who introduced Governor Palin by sneering about Barack Hussein Obama; the scorn with which Republicans spit out the words “community organizer”; the Republicans’ argument that using taxes to “spread the wealth” was socialist when the purpose of taxes is to spread the wealth; Palin’s insidious notion that small towns in states that went for W. were “the real America.”
But what sent him over the edge and made him realize he had to speak out was when he opened his New Yorker three weeks ago and saw a picture of a mother pressing her head against the gravestone of her son, a 20-year-old soldier who had been killed in Iraq. On the headstone were engraved his name, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, his awards — the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star — and a crescent and a star to denote his Islamic faith.
“I stared at it for an hour,” he told me. “Who could debate that this kid lying in Arlington with Christian and Jewish and nondenominational buddies was not a fine American?”
Khan was an all-American kid. A 2005 graduate of Southern Regional High School in Manahawkin, N.J., he loved the Dallas Cowboys and playing video games with his 12-year-old stepsister, Aliya.
His obituary in The Star-Ledger of Newark said that he had sent his family back pictures of himself playing soccer with Iraqi children and hugging a smiling young Iraqi boy.
His father said Kareem had been eager to enlist since he was 14 and was outraged by the 9/11 attacks. “His Muslim faith did not make him not want to go,” Feroze Khan, told The Gannett News Service after his son died. “He looked at it that he’s American and he has a job to do.”
In a gratifying “have you no sense of decency, Sir and Madam?” moment, Colin Powell went on “Meet the Press” on Sunday and talked about Khan, and the unseemly ways John McCain and Palin have been polarizing the country to try to get elected. It was a tonic to hear someone push back so clearly on ugly innuendo.
Even the Obama campaign has shied away from Muslims. The candidate has gone to synagogues but no mosques, and the campaign was embarrassed when it turned out that two young women in headscarves had not been allowed to stand behind Obama during a speech in Detroit because aides did not want them in the TV shot.
The former secretary of state has dealt with prejudice in his life, in and out of the Army, and he is keenly aware of how many millions of Muslims around the world are being offended by the slimy tenor of the race against Obama.
He told Tom Brokaw that he was troubled by what other Republicans, not McCain, had said: “ ‘Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no. That’s not America. Is something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?”
Powell got a note from Feroze Khan this week thanking him for telling the world that Muslim-Americans are as good as any others. But he also received more e-mails insisting that Obama is a Muslim and one calling him “unconstitutional and unbiblical” for daring to support a socialist. He got a mass e-mail from a man wanting to spread the word that Obama was reading a book about the end of America written by a fellow Muslim.
“Holy cow!” Powell thought. Upon checking Amazon.com, he saw that it was a reference to Fareed Zakaria, a Muslim who writes a Newsweek column and hosts a CNN foreign affairs show. His latest book is “The Post-American World.”
Powell is dismissive of those, like Rush Limbaugh, who say he made his endorsement based on race. And he’s offended by those who suggest that his appearance Sunday was an expiation for Iraq, speaking up strongly now about what he thinks the world needs because he failed to do so then.
Even though he watched W. in 2000 make the argument that his lack of foreign policy experience would be offset by the fact that he was surrounded by pros — Powell himself was one of the regents brought in to guide the bumptious Texas dauphin — Powell makes that same argument now for Obama.
“Experience is helpful,” he says, “but it is judgment that matters.”
Two comments. First, Ms. Dowd calling anyone or anything 'slimy' is the kettle calling the pot ferric. Second, it is ironic that she decries the alleged racism in others while she presumes to know what "many millions" around the world are thinking. Someone needs to give this harridan a copy of Said's Orientalism.
Lee Majors
10-22-2008, 17:41
Before Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, I'm curious how many of you would have voted for Powell over McCain for the Republican nomination?
I voted for Romney in our caucus but would have strongly considered Colin Powell if he was an option.
Jamie
The Reaper
10-22-2008, 17:48
Before Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, I'm curious how many of you would have voted for Powell over McCain for the Republican nomination?
I voted for Romney in our caucus but would have strongly considered Colin Powell if he was an option.
Jamie
Never.
Too liberal on social policies.
JC Watts would be another matter.
TR
Mr. Watts is the person I'd hoped McCain would pick for his running mate. He would have given the Democrats fits (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002867,00.html).
Hopefully, Reverend Watts will return to politics in the near future.
Before Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, I'm curious how many of you would have voted for Powell over McCain for the Republican nomination?
As has been pointed out before to other new guys. You should go back and read the old threads from the primary.
McCain was the last pick of the majority of those who post here. If Powell would have been running McCain would have been second to last.
I make my fight in the primaries. Come election time you have to Cowboy up and vote for the one who will do the least damage, or most good if you wish. McCain started to pick up around here when he picked Palin.
The R's be problem was/is they have open primaries in a number of states and this year some of the more conservative candidates got in late, didn't run strong or only ran strong in small areas. With no strong contender we got McCain.
Deal with it.:D
USANick7
10-23-2008, 11:37
Before Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, I'm curious how many of you would have voted for Powell over McCain for the Republican nomination?
I voted for Romney in our caucus but would have strongly considered Colin Powell if he was an option.
Jamie
Not a chance...I respected Colin Powell, but was very aware of his "moderate Republican" position. I don't think I could ever see myself voting for a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, populist like Powell, but I guess it might depend on how bad his opponent was. regardless, I have lost a great deal of respect for general Powell.
I actually voted for Fred Thompson in the primaries.
http://tinyurl.com/5lkepo
A question. Europeans and Asians don't know that there are black people in the United States?
October 24, 2008
Editorial
Barack Obama for President
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12516666
It's time
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
[Continued below.}
The rest of The Economist's endorsement of Senator Obama
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
FYI, this newspaper endorsed President Bush twice, was for the invasion of Iraq, and consistently urged the United States to stay the course there.
Ret10Echo
11-02-2008, 07:12
Although I do read the Economist because of it's global perspective...it is most decidedly NOT a conservative publication.
It seems that the impression of the writer is that there is a priority for the U.S. to be more "globally" accepted. The means to that end is to defer to world opinion and compromise on beliefs.
So those that prefer a nation that will be led by the nose have an obvious choice ....B.H.O....because a socialist agenda fits the European mold.
A lot like AT&T's marketing campaign...if you really think about it, who cares if you get more bars in Sweden than anybody else????? I live in North America!
The greater their intelligence and experience the better they usually are at spinning things, but if you listen closely they will give you little tidbits of the truth, if you can pick out the bits of truth you can connect the dots. This to me feels like a tidbit of truth, just as Sen Obama's comment about trying to spread the wealth around when talking to Joe the plumber and Sen Obama's quip about those who "cling" to their guns and religion were tidbits of truth.
Proud of what is my question, electing a man who is in fact the least unqualified man in US history to seek the White house, or proud to elect a man who speaks real nice but is peddling thinly veiled socialism to be the POTUS? Or maybe I suppose we should just be proud that the above man if he gets elected is a minority. Maybe I'll be so proud I'll forget about worrying about his qualifications or lack of experience, his disturbing ties to unsavory characters or his socialist agenda.
You call my statement, "unsupported speculation" I call it calling a spade a spade based on my real world experience.
IMO there's more to this story...we'll see if BHO wins. Sounds like General Powell is a RINO. Great post, Defender968.
I would suggest that The Economist is a liberal news paper in the traditional meaning of that word rather than the Americanized version.
I respectfully disagree that the editors want America to defer to world public opinion. My reading is that they want a different type of leadership than what President Bush has practiced.
I believe that the editors would have preferred to endorse Senator McCain but for some of the tactical miscues he's made.
USANick7
11-03-2008, 13:57
Economist loses ,much respect...
actually they endorsed Kerry in 04
Economist loses ,much respect...
actually they endorsed Kerry in 04
Nick,
Thank you for the correction. I must have been on Mars to have missed that (or I was taking a break from The Economist).
Successive endorsements of candidates who would promote economic policies that that publication would not like is something to think about before deciding to renew one's subscription.