Posted on 10/20/2008 6:43:05 AM PDT by shortstop
There are two types of people in the world.
Those who think Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because he’s black, and those who believe that anyone who thinks that is a racist. One type is forced by modern political correctness into silence, and the other type is by the same means emboldened in its vigilant desire to denounce.
The numbers of each probably exceed a hundred million.
Personally, I believe racial solidarity was a factor, probably the deciding factor, in Colin Powell’s endorsement. The only other explanation is that, in the eighth decade of his life, Colin Powell has completely changed political philosophies and lost the ability to gauge political reality.
No disrespect intended, Colin Powell has been a prominent American and a career military man, but his stated reasons for backing Barack Obama don’t make sense.
Here are some examples.
He said yesterday on “Meet The Press” that the Republican Party could not be entrusted with the next two Supreme Court nominations. He said that the appointment of more conservatives to the court would be bad for the country.
That is a straw man argument that, if it is sincere, requires us to believe that Colin Powell knows nothing of John McCain’s political record of even which party controls the U.S. Senate. John McCain has been, over the last 25 years, less politically conservative than Colin Powell. John McCain would appoint moderates to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary, but he would not appoint conservatives.
And at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who John McCain appoints – the Harry Reid Senate, with an expected Democratic supermajority, is going to hold all the cards. Who gets on the Supreme Court for at least the next two years will be determined by the Democratic Senate, not by a possible Republican White House.
And Colin Powell knows that.
So that reason is disingenuous.
And others seem similarly unconvincing. Look at his statement on TV: “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.”
Let’s take that in order. First, “his ability to inspire.”
Actually, Barack Obama’s “ability to inspire” extends to less than half the people in the country. In fact, his support among the public is no higher than that generated by Al Gore or John Kerry when they ran for president. So far, Barack Obama’s support across the country – in spite of a staggering campaign budget and more ads than anyone has ever seen before – is essentially what it has been for any Democratic presidential candidate of the last generation.
Put another way, Barack Obama has yet to inspire as many people – as a percentage of the population – as Jimmy Carter did against Gerald Ford in 1976. And he has yet to surpass the percentage “inspired” by Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry.
Next absurdity: “because of the inclusive nature of his campaign.”
Inclusive of whom? Is that the dictionary “inclusive,” as in lots of different types of people, or the politically correct “inclusive,” as in non-white? Actually, neither is truly accurate. Barack Obama’s campaign – naturally – is composed of the traditional Democratic coalition. And at its senior levels it may be, compared to Al Gore and John Kerry, less racially diverse, by which I mean more senior people seem to be white.
Next line: “because he is reaching out all across America.” That’s meaningless. Not since Benjamin Harrison campaigned from his front porch has a presidential candidate from either party done anything other than “reach out all across America.”
Next line: “because of who he is.” That’s pretty subjective, but “who he is” includes being the most liberal and least experienced major-party presidential candidate anyone can think of.
Then Colin Powell praised Barack Obama’s abilities as a speaker, which many people would agree with.
Colin Powell was asked about the perception some would have that he endorsement was about race.
He responded, “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."
That’s not a satisfying answer. The truth is that, if you decide you support a candidate – for whatever reason – you announce your endorsement at the time it will do them the most good. And right now, just two weeks before the election, when Barack Obama is up but not putting it away, is when a big-name endorsement will do him the most good. Timing is no reflection of reason, when it comes to endorsements. Colin Powell’s response doesn’t really make sense.
And neither does his endorsement.
Granted, anyone can vote for anyone for any reason they choose, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Voting – and endorsing – are completely private and personal rights, and nobody owes anybody an explanation for anything.
But, if you take race out of it, Colin Powell’s endorsement seems to be a departure from a lifetime’s choices and allegiances. Colin Powell has been a Republican insider since the days of Richard Nixon, for whom he worked. That contact proved very valuable to his military career as he hopscotched his seniors to take assignments and promotions.
He was Ronald Reagan’s national security advisor. George Bush the elder made him the youngest chairman of the joint chiefs, and the only one not to have attended West Point or Annapolis. George Bush the younger made him secretary of state.
At every turn of his career, Colin Powell has implemented and supported the conservative policies of his Republican patrons. He was, in fact, the man who assured the world in testimony before the United Nations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When Barack Obama claims that America was “lied into” the war in Iraq, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he believes Colin Powell is a liar, as it was Colin Powell who assured the world and the American people that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction made the war necessary.
Further, the surge which Barack Obama opposed is an application of the so-called Powell Doctrine – the belief held by every man who served in Vietnam, that if you’re going to fight, you go in with the deck stacked in your favor and you flatten your enemy, no holds barred.
With all respect to Colin Powell, who is a noteworthy and inspiring American, the philosophy and associates of Barack Obama are a dramatic departure from what and who Colin Powell has associated himself for his entire adult life. If a man sincerely supported Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, he cannot sincerely support Barack Obama. Without regard to which side of the equation you admire or support, the two sides are ultimately irreconcilable. They just stand for very different things.
If it wasn’t race that tipped Colin Powell to Barack Obama, it’s hard to figure out what else it could have been. Unless the general has had a late-life change of philosophy – or he spent a career supporting policies and politicians he didn’t really believe in – his support of Barack Obama doesn’t make sense. He is a career military man who personally served in the staffs of four conservative Republican presidents and benefited tremendously from them.
Colin Powell can support anybody he wants. That’s his right. Just as it’s our right to try to figure out why.
One hundred percent correct!
May his "compassionate conservatism" be a lesson to those who would offer an olive branch to their enemies.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
“Next line: “because he is reaching out all across America.” That’s meaningless.”
0bama is reaching out with a club for anyone who disagrees.
LOL! Where did you find that?
I’d rather have Joe the Plumbers endorsement than powells .
Colin Powell can support anybody he wants. That’s his right. Just as it’s our right to try to figure out why
I don’t think the Powell endorsement will sway many voters if any, thus why spend time trying to figure out why someone does things that in essence don’t matter.
Frankly, based upon what I have seen during this campaign season, I already assumed that most blacks will pull the lever for Obama because the fairytale ending is just too tempting.
I think it more newsworthy to hear about blacks who have decided NOT to vote for Obama, because they see through the marketing.
I think the overriding factor is as he stated himself...
He doesn’t like Palin, primarily because of her expressed and obvious faith in God which translates to her strong pro-life stance.
I think the strongest underlying factor is Powell’s opportunistic desire to distance himself from being labeled a republican “uncle tom”.
With the polls getting better for McCain after numerous elite pundits, Rino’s, terrorists, dictators and the MSM endorse Zero..it seems that they are all having an negative effect on the middle right of the public.
Powell is an opportunist. He will do anything to stay in the limelight. If McCain wins he will be back cuddling up and nice.
From link: "Not wanting to have anyone say in the history books that he voted against Jackie “Obama” Robinson being the first black presidential player, Colin Powell has voted race. "
And outside the beltway, or the NYC cocktail circuit, who gives a rat's patoot what he thinks anyway.
How a US General can endorse someone who has had relations with a terrorist either shows that he is a traitor himself going against the oath he took to our country OR he is a racist. Has to be one or the other.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/17/powell-surge/
Interesting link with video......
Powell stood in opposition to the surge.......
If McCain wanted to he could state “Although I respect General Powell, he was against the surge.......yet the surge, which I supported, was successful”
The Suntrade Institute will tell you why!
General Powell, as is John McCain, GWB, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, etc, are bona fide members of the Council on Foreign Relations. A "'powerful" (read arrogant) set of Washington DC - New York insiders, including major media owners, who operate to manipulate (read spin) the politics of the United States, to integrate it into the globalist community.
Anyone who thinks there is a philosophical division between a "Republican Party" and a "Democratic Party" is naive. That is now obvious.
The people of the United States could, and would, work, function, invest, sacrifice, build, and prosper, very well with the most laid back, conservative "President." But that is NOT what is going on.
Read the Suntrade Institute's tagline.
There are indeed two types of people in the world: the Bicamerals, those who need to function in a topdown authoritative world, where direction is given centrally and by extortion. This IS the Left. And those who function through their own internal consciousness of self responsibility and moral balance. This is what religion, especially Christianity is all about. This is WHY the Soviet Union outlawed it.
This schism of mass human psychology (bicameral or conscious), is clearly explained in Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, but appears over and over in the Greek philosophers, Christ, Payne, HG Wells, Toynbee, Camus, and others.
The Council on Foreign Relations does NOT believe that human commerce can function through the individual's own moral, or social, balance, but must rather be "handled." That is what the current politics in the United States is about.
Sarah Palin for instance is clearly someone whose life strategy they disdain.
Simply-put Conservatism is human commerce functioning through the responsibility and courage of the individual, Leftism is mass manipulation because of the lack of faith in that option, hence the arrogance of the Ivy league set.
How obvious is it?
We are truly going the wrong way. To Johnny Suntrade, Jay Rockefeller is a mentally sick individual, as are many others.
You have heard this from the Suntrade Institute, not the Brookings Institution, not the CFR, not the DNC, not the GOP, not the Harvard School of Government.
http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/ seems a good reference blog, takes the time for in depth analysis and a useful link to timely videos.
” Powell is not a descendant of slaves (he’s Caribbean)”
—WHAT?!?!?
I believe his parents are from Jamaica, although he was born in New York.
The only thing his endorsement means is that Colon (yes I spelled it right) Powell IS the affermative action moron we all knew he was all along.
Over promoted due to his race, and finally obviously NOT for his intelligence.
There is a difference between book smart (which he is) and intelligent thinker (obviously is NOT)
“I think it more newsworthy to hear about blacks who have decided NOT to vote for Obama, because they see through the marketing.”
They are true blue principled conservatives.
They know that freedom is at stake.
Powell has been drinking DC bathwater too long.
If my email is any indication from military I know “not setting too well in some circles” is an understatement!
My inbox for my email is pretty singed right now. Someone reminded me that Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak came to head the AF under Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. McPeak was a kneepadder for Clinton from the beginning and fired Air Force members who said anything against Clinton in public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.