Powell endorses Obama.

[roo_ster]

Powell is not a "neocon", but a conservative.  There is a difference.

He was always big supporter of affirmative action / quotas.  Why shouldn't he support the Affirmative Action Candidate?

[agricola]

Modern liberals have gotten back to their roots, because they learned they do not do well when they stray from them.  They are about helping the poor, middle crash, and disenfranchised.  They are about making the government work for the people, instead of staying out of the people's business.

Nonsense.  Anyone who expects modern Liberal politicians to improve the lives of anyone other than their own narrow clique (and I mean people who are either personally known to them or whom they would like to get the support of) of acquaintances needs their head examining, even more than those fools who think that Powell has done this in order to deliver a wakeup call to conservatives. 

As for this election, "modern liberals" have seen what worked for Bush II in 2000 and 2004, and what worked for Blair three elections in a row, and adopted their styles accordingly.  DailyKos and HP are the new Freepers.  Acorn is the new Diebold.  Lies are the new opposition policy. Obama is the new Bush.   

[Nitrogen]

Nonsense.  Anyone who expects modern Liberal politicians to improve the lives of anyone other than their own narrow clique (and I mean people who are either personally known to them or whom they would like to get the support of) of acquaintances needs their head examining, even more than those fools who think that Powell has done this in order to deliver a wakeup call to conservatives. 

As for this election, "modern liberals" have seen what worked for Bush II in 2000 and 2004, and what worked for Blair three elections in a row, and adopted their styles accordingly.  DailyKos and HP are the new Freepers.  Acorn is the new Diebold.  Lies are the new opposition policy. Obama is the new Bush.   

I don't think we disagree that much.  What they do and what they say they'll do are two different things, as we both know.
Perhaps I should have said, they CLAIM they are about helping the poor, etc.

[De Selby]

He was always big supporter of affirmative action / quotas.  Why shouldn't he support the Affirmative Action Candidate?

I guess that makes McCain the "age discrimination in employment act" candidate.

Seriously folks, things are bad enough now that it is entirely realistic for intelligent people to oppose the candidate of the party that held the executive office for the past 8 years. 

Obama isn't winning the election because he's black, he's winning because John McCain basically campaigned on the promise of four more years of Bush policy.

[Manedwolf]

Seriously folks, things are bad enough now that it is entirely realistic for intelligent stupid people to oppose the candidate of the party that held the executive office for the past 8 years instead of the party who has held Congress for the past two years.

FTFY.

[De Selby]

FTFY.

Ah yes, this disaster has only been two years in the making now because...that's the amount of time at which at least some blame can be laid on the other party? 

Congress rightly has a low approval rating, but for the most part, it has bent down to every demand from the executive for two years now and beyond. 

It's simply impossible to review the facts and to unequivocally blame this mess on the Democrats, and that's why the Republicans are losing.  Conservatives can either choose to own up to this and move on with the Republican party, or they can choose to become the Democrats of the first Bush term: pretending that every loss is the product of voter fraud, and that only fascists/fanatics or the badly bamboozled would support the Republicans.

[taurusowner]

Modern liberals have gotten back to their roots, because they learned they do not do well when they stray from them.  They are about helping the poor, middle crash, and disenfranchised.  They are about making the government work for the people, instead of staying out of the people's business.

The problem with that is when your idea of how to make your life work conflicts with the government's idea of how to make your life work.


A lot of liberals have really good intentions.  It's true.  They have a grand plan of how the world should work and how resources should be allotted.  They have plans to make everyone happy and healthy.  They have plans to give everyone houses and food, health-care and jobs.


And they believe the rest of us should be forced into following this plan by whatever means they have to use.  THAT's the problem with liberalism.  They have a lot of great social ideas* that would help a lot of people if they were done through charity.  Except the liberals think these ideas should be forced, even if we don't want them to.  And they are not afraid to use the fist of government to change our minds.  The Left's grand plan for the world takes everything into account except for liberty and free will.  And those exceptions make the whole plan unworkable and detestable.


*I'm only talking about things like health-care and paying for education and that kind of thing.  Not gun control, immigration, foreign policy, etc.

[Manedwolf]

A lot of liberals have really good intentions.  It's true.  They have a grand plan of how the world should work and how resources should be allotted.  They have plans to make everyone happy and healthy.  They have plans to give everyone houses and food, health-care and jobs.

As I've said, they will keep taking people into an already crowded lifeboat until it is swamped and sinks out from under everyone.

[Ron]

WASHINGTON – Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/obama

[Manedwolf]

Ah yes, this disaster has only been two years in the making now because...that's the amount of time at which at least some blame can be laid on the other party? 

Congress rightly has a low approval rating, but for the most part, it has bent down to every demand from the executive for two years now and beyond. 

It's simply impossible to review the facts and to unequivocally blame this mess on the Democrats, and that's why the Republicans are losing.  Conservatives can either choose to own up to this and move on with the Republican party, or they can choose to become the Democrats of the first Bush term: pretending that every loss is the product of voter fraud, and that only fascists/fanatics or the badly bamboozled would support the Republicans.

You need to take look at how hypocrites like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer CAUSED the housing mess by turning Fannie and Freddie into public housing, and voting against oversight and reform at every single turn. Schumer even used low-income mortgages like free candy to get votes in his home district. They both should be in JAIL.

[roo_ster]

I guess that makes McCain the "age discrimination in employment act" candidate.

Seriously folks, things are bad enough now that it is entirely realistic for intelligent people to oppose the candidate of the party that held the executive office for the past 8 years. 

Obama isn't winning the election because he's black, he's winning because John McCain basically campaigned on the promise of four more years of Bush policy.

Limbaugh: 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."

Obama would never have gotten the Dem nomination were he a white lefty with little experience.  John Edwards comes to mind.

[richyoung]

I used to have a lot of respect for that man.

Why?  He's aknown gun control advocate, and Schwarzkopf did the heavy lifting of GWI.  Also, Powell was instrumental in stopping us short of Baghdad, (he was sared of media reaction to the "highway of death"), thus leading to GWII - da Schwarz wanted to keep going. 

[richyoung]

I have even more for him.

He basically did this to smack the modern day republican party across the face.  Republicans have pandered to the hard-right base (the religious right being the main part) and it has totally ruined the party.

Republicans used to be for smaller government.  Not anymore.  We've seen the largest expansion of government under this republican administration.

Please instruct me as to what religious right organizations are in favor of bigger governemnt.  In my experience, they want as little government in their lives as possible - often home-schooling their kids.

Republicans used to be about fiscal responsibility.  Not anymore.  Our national debt is currently higher than it's ever been.

Please list the religious right organizations that call for more government spending and deficits.

Republicans used to be about freedom.  McCain authored one hell of a bill stifiling free speech in the name of campaign reform.

Please list the religious right organizations that endorsed Mcain-Fiengold - there aren't any.

Republicans used to be about freedom.  Now they are more about authoritarianism, unless it can win them more votes.  (Abortions, while repugnant, are none of the governments business,

Murder is always the government's business.

as is what homos do in their own bedrooms,

AIDS, herpes, antibiotic resistant VD - none of the .gov's biz, eh?

or if they want to get married.

They can get married right now.  To a member of the oposite gener.  Just like everyone else.  They just can;t marry the SAME gender, (or multiples, or animals, or blood relatives, or any number of OTHER things prohibited by the very definition of marriage.

Victimless crimes like drug use as well.  None of the governments business.  Each allows the Government to grow larger, exerting more control over your life.

I actually agree wtih you on this one...

A good exception being guns; as there's a large enough voting block that feels strongly enough about this to keep them free, for now.  Modern republicans will at least pay this right lip service.+

Who appointed the justices that ruled the right way in Heller?  The repubs do far more than pay "lip service" to the 2nd - the Dems haven't made it UP to lip service yet.

[richyoung]

Here's a theory:

Maybe Powell, like a significant number of Americans, is looking at the financial crisis and failing wars that follow a good 30 years of Reagan-Clinton-Bush policy,

Yea - there wasn't no Presidents Carter and Clinton in there for 12 of those years....

[richyoung]

Ah yes, this disaster has only been two years in the making now because...that's the amount of time at which at least some blame can be laid on the other party? 

Congress rightly has a low approval rating, but for the most part, it has bent down to every demand from the executive for two years now and beyond. 

It's simply impossible to review the facts and to unequivocally blame this mess on the Democrats, and that's why the Republicans are losing. 

Don't know what planet YOU are on, but on mine, a whole laundry list of Democrats, including Chris Dodd, (biggest recipient)Obama, (2nd biggest), Barny Frank, (former lover in charge), got millions, repeat MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie at the SAME TIME those very elected officials were BLOCKING republican efforts to reform them.   But don't let the facts get in the way of a good screed...

[Gowen]

Obama isn't winning the election because he's black, he's winning because John McCain basically campaigned on the promise of four more years of Bush policy.

Horse cuckie!  He is in the lead only because he is liberal and black.  His message, if you can find one, is no different than any other liberal democrat.  He was forced on us by the liberal media.

John McCain has been a thorn in the side of President Bush for the last 8 years.  Anyone who's has been mildly paying attention would have seen that.  As John McCain has said, if BHO wanted to run against President Bush, he should have done it 4 years ago.

[MechAg94]

I think it is most likely that he is a social liberal and likes some of what Obama would do.  My vote on his position would be SecDef.

All the other stuff is speculation.  Honestly, I have no idea what his political leanings are other than he is not really all that conservative.  Of course, IMO, Bush isn't all that conservative either (meaning for smaller government, lower taxes, less debt spending, etc.).

[Manedwolf]

I think it is most likely that he is a social liberal and likes some of what Obama would do.  My vote on his position would be SecDef.

All the other stuff is speculation.  Honestly, I have no idea what his political leanings are other than he is not really all that conservative.  Of course, IMO, Bush isn't all that conservative either (meaning for smaller government, lower taxes, less debt spending, etc.).

It appears that Obama's choice for secdef is already Merrill McPeak.

[ArmedBear]

Powell is not a "neocon", but a conservative.  There is a difference.

Nor was he ever a flaming liberal. Totally race-oriented. No surprise here, either.

I disagree with both. I think he has always been President, Chairman and sole member of the Colin Powell Club.

15 years ago, I already thought he was the Chairborne Ranger who took the credit for what a real general, Stormin' Norman, did in the field.

After which, he was a DC schmoozer and backroom player who wound his way into a position as Secretary of State, stood in the UN and gave a speech that ultimately embarrassed him, and he's been trying to clean up his image ever since.

Did he not really believe in what he said about Saddam? So did he say it anyway? No reason to put principles ahead of politics.

Or did he really believe it? So has he been trying to blame others ever since? No reason not to throw everyone possible under the bus, as long as it might help you a little.

Note that none of this has a thing to do with his endorsement of Obama. His name suddenly appearing from the La Brea Tarpits of politics just reminded me of what I thought of the guy, the last time I thought of him at all.

[De Selby]

Note that none of this has a thing to do with his endorsement of Obama. All I wonder is why anyone gives a crap what Colin Powell says about anything at this point.

Mainly because most of us aren't ideologically committed to discounting the opinions of those who disagree, and to finding value in any statement that agrees with our political beliefs.

There is no doubt that Obama's election will bewilder some of the right wing population, much the same way George Bush's election simply could not make sense to the liberal elites.  But I think for most people, the fact that well respected voices are hopping party lines in this election makes sense, given the economic and military crises that have followed from the Republican led, lame-duck Democrat ratified policies of the past 8 years.

[ArmedBear]

shootinstudent, you sound like a broken record. Relevance matters, my friend. Responding to damn near everything with the same sentence, reworded, is tedious.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with his endorsement of Obama; I wouldn't care one way or another, and it doesn't change my mind, nor, I would hazard, anyone else's on either side.

Colin Powell was not a well-respected voice. He just bought himself some attention for a day or two.

This is an interesting sideshow. It reflects on Obama only because Colin Powell figures it's worthwhile to bask in his glow. If Colin Powell's history is to be any guide, that means he figures getting in good with Obama might be good for Colin Powell.

Or did you have respect for Colin Powell 5 years ago? Or last week, for that matter? I don't think many people on either side made it any point to say so until now.

But does this reinforce anything I think about Obama? No. This isn't about Obama; it's about Colin Powell.

Like I said, this is what I thought of Powell for a long time. It's amusing to see the liberals who had little but spite for the guy when he carried water for Bush, suddenly acting like they've always thought he was great, though.

[wacki]

Reading his Wikipedia profile it seems that on every domestic issue he has sided with democrats: affirmative action, abortion, gays in the military, gun control, etc.  He hates conservative judges and didn't want to go into war with Iraq.

Why is he a republican again?  I'm confused.  I'm not saying I disagree with him on those issues (obvious exception with gun control though) I'm simply wondering how he made it so high up the republican chain.  Seems to me he's a moderate democrat.

[ArmedBear]

The arguments about cutting corporate taxes, spending billions on defense, and preemptive action have been conclusively settled by the headlines, and they have not settled in favor of the post-Vietnam conservatives.

The arguments about cutting corporate taxes are not over, primarily since the global economy has made it feasible for corporations to go where their expenses, taxes being one of them, are lowest. The Left wants to believe we can tax corporations freely, without any consequences, and this is simply not true. Whether anyone on the Right can articulate this well enough for people to "get it", it's hard to say. It seems far easier for ham-fisted populists on either side to blame "greed" while America's economy suffers and nothing is done.

It's also in the interest of every politician to cover his ass. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are dirty, and they deserve a great deal of blame for the bank failures. They're Democrats. Bush wanted to rein in Fannie and Freddie a few years ago; there sure wasn't a rubber stamp for this then. Believe me, I'm not saying anyone's innocent, just that whoever has had a hand in this is trying to cover that up.

WRT defense spending, that's an interesting thing. At some point, someone will have to ask why NATO means "The US is your Army!" It's true, we can't keep spending our billions on defense, so that others don't have to.

OTOH, I find Obama's opposition to missile defense puzzling, at best. I've always wondered about this peculiarity of the American Left. Why NOT neutralize the threat we've lived under for so many decades?

Preemptive action? Hell, the whole "War on Terror" has been managed in ways I dislike. I don't think that this talking point buzzword, as used by either side, begins to sum up the problems with it.

Bottom line?

I don't think that any of this is going away. Every few years, someone says, "The argument is over, and we've won!" Bullshit.

As long as politicians can find something people are afraid of and claim they'll fix it, it will come up again. Terrorism, health care, whatever the fear du jour is. You name it. Someone will use it to try to get elected. No one will actually have a good solution, but hell, people are gullible.

Politicians are a lot like college students who never grew up. They can easily find everything wrong with the world, but they have no solutions. But they can talk about the problems for years on end.

[ArmedBear]

Seriously folks, things are bad enough now that it is entirely realistic for intelligent people to oppose the candidate of the party that held the executive office for the past 8 years.

There's nothing intelligent about saying, "Well, my spec house isn't worth what I wanted, and my stocks are down, so let's see, Bush is a Republican, so I will vote for the Democrat!"

What would be intelligent would be to examine the proposals of each candidate, along with his track record and other factors, and decide which one to vote for. If the answer comes up "Democrat" then that's the intelligent choice. But simply voting for the opposite party of whoever is in the White House as a reaction to something like a drop in the Dow is dumb.

"4 more years of Bush" is a silly campaign slogan. It is likely effective, but it's hardly "intelligent."

[Perd Hapley]

Republicans have pandered to the hard-right base (the religious right being the main part) and it has totally ruined the party.

Republicans used to be for smaller government.  Not anymore.  We've seen the largest expansion of government under this republican administration.

Republicans used to be about fiscal responsibility.  Not anymore.  Our national debt is currently higher than it's ever been.

Republicans used to be about freedom.  McCain authored one hell of a bill stifiling free speech in the name of campaign reform.

Wow, I am shocked that you could be so confused about this.  McCain is well-known for his disdain for religious conservatives, and even more well-known for being the very soft right.  Why you would blame the Religious Right or hard right for McCain-Feingold, I simply can't imagine.  Having a fair amount of exposure to religious conservatives (and I are one), I can tell you I've never met a single one that voiced any support for McCain-Feingold.  On that issue, religious conservatives are no different than other conservatives.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, of run-away spending, the national debt, expansion of govt., and a number of other issues.  You are correct in stating that the Religious Right tends to be "the hard right," but the "hard right" are exactly the sort of people that agree with you about McCain-Feingold, et al.  But I guess you have a different idea of "hard right" than most people do.  I thought it usually implied a "heartless," small-govt. approach. 

Republicans used to be about freedom.  Now they are more about authoritarianism, unless it can win them more votes.  (Abortions, while repugnant, are none of the governments business, as is what homos do in their own bedrooms, or if they want to get married.  Victimless crimes like drug use as well.  None of the governments business.  Each allows the Government to grow larger, exerting more control over your life.  A good exception being guns; as there's a large enough voting block that feels strongly enough about this to keep them free, for now. 

Most religious conservatives I've met don't seem to be gun people.  But they exhibit a STRONG tendency to favor gun rights.  There is a very simple reason for this:  most religious conservatives are on board for the whole conservative platform and gun rights are a part of that.  In fact, I think your argument is with conservatives in general, not with the religious folks. 

About abortion, public opinion is moving in our favor.  And as richyoung said that's not a small-govt issue.  Murder is obviously the province of govt. 

About sodomy laws, I think the religious right is moving toward a more libertarian position on that one, but with Lawrence v Texas, that's really not an issue anymore. 

About homosexual marriage, no, we're not giving in to that insane idea, because we are not that stupid.  But the public seems to agree with us about that one.  Witness the very high margins of victory for anti-HM measures in the 2004 elections.

Drug legalization may be the one issue where you have a point, but even there, neither party is really your friend on that one, and I don't see that issue winning or losing many elections, anyway.

As soon as the Republican party kicks the Religious Right to the curb where it belongs, they are a lost party.

You can say this, after the Palin nomination?    Where have you been?