The Powell Doctrine: Ovewhelming Force [Updated]
Colin Powell staged an historic gesture Sunday morning by crossing party lines and unreservedly endorsing Barack Obama, denouncing the smear tactics of the McCain campaign as “over the top,” and calling boldly for a “generational change” in American politics. Powell also went were virtually no American politician has dared this season, not even Obama himself, by simply asking “so what?” even if the Democratic candidate were a Muslim. No question this is Powell’s finest moment and he has offered us one of the most dramatic, and highest-toned moments in these final days of the campaign.
I’m not quite ready to grant Powell redemption, something way above my pay grade anyway. But I’d vigorously shake his hand if given the chance.
Powell still has much to answer to this country and to history itself. As Secretary of State to George W. Bush, Powell served as “the closer” on the invasion of Iraq. The man who could have been president himself if he had so desired, the most admired of American military and diplomatic leaders, put all of his personal prestige on the line when he went before the UN and made the final argument for the war in Iraq.
He knew better. His most trusted analysts, his closest deputies, his most trusted staff all knew that W’s plans for Iraq were ill-conceived and probably ill-motivated. He scoured, sifted and weighed all the “evidence” he was to present before the UN and, previously, he had within the closed administration debates tried to act as a rational, moderate counter-weight to his unhinged rivals, then-Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld and the veritable overlord of the war – Dick Cheney.
Powell, for reasons we will never fully understand, went ahead anyway. And, lo, his word was good enough . The war soon commenced. But the be-medaled former general who had overseen the first Gulf War, who had been head of Ronald Reagan’s national security council, soon had his regrets. He didn’t say much publicly – to his discredit. He was more than happy, however, to divorce himself from the second Bush administration. And we know now, in painful detail – thanks to Bob Woodward’s latest book The War Within—that when called before a closed session before the Iraq Study Group, Powell spent 90 heated minutes unloading on the White House for the fiasco in Iraq. In public, however, he still remained almost mute as thousands of Americans and Iraqis continued to die.
Does Powell’s endorsement of Barack cancel all this out? We report , you decide.
What I do know, to a moral certitude, is that Powell has definitively cancelled John McCain’s ticket. And this time his slowness to act, his delay in coming out publicly for Obama was exquisitely timed – wittingly or otherwise. With barely two weeks to go before election day, and facing a mounting Democratic tsunami, the McCain-Palin strategy had come down to a rather transparent pincer movement with two thrusts aimed at Obama. As journalist Josh Marshall put it: “Stripped down to its components McCain’s message to voters is this: “Don’t forget. He’s definitely black. And he may be a terrorist.” I would probably reverse the order of that statement, but the basic idea stands.
How else to explain the nefarious nationwide robo-call assault launched directly by the McCain campaign in which voters were told: “I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans.” The message went on to assert that, if elected, “Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda.” An unrepentant McCain followed up that sleaze over the weekend in his own voice, sternly warning in a nationwide radio address that Obama would bring “socialist” policies to America. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has been deployed to unabashedly rally the tin foil hat fringe of the GOP, the “real Americans” who have no hesitation to show up before the cameras with stuffed monkey dolls wearing Obama hats.
The so-called Powell Doctrine, shaped by Colin Powell during the First Gulf War can be summarized as “the exercise of overwhelming force.” That’s exactly what we saw deployed Sunday during Powell’s endorsement. Talk about shock and awe. Powell didn’t come in light or half-cocked, like Rumsfeld in Iraq. He methodically marshaled all of his forces. He prepared a sweeping critique of his own party and of its presidential candidates that included the issues of the economy, war and peace, diplomacy, America’s image in the world, religious and racial tolerance, the composition of the Supreme Court, and the need for transformational and generational change and he dropped the whole load smack on McCain’s head.
With one devastating and thunderous blow, the last tenuous arguments of the GOP campaign were vaporized. The sweet, sweet irony here is that McCain’s insidious double message of beware the terrorist/black has been swept away by another black man. The only other black man in America with the power and authority to stand in the way. McCain, the old soldier, recklessly went one hill of dung too far with far too rag-tag a force. When he got to the summit, before it all went dark, he must have been horrified to see what was arrayed against him and into what superior a force he had charged.
UPDATE: I like this addendum from Andrew Sullivan. And the photo. This was the high point of Powell’s spiel on Meet The Press. And along with Oama’s “We are the people we have been waiting for,” one of the top 5 moments of the campaign.
This young man was a Muslim. And he was an American.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Powell’s endorsement had nothing to do with race. Ignore any of his earlier comments or positions to the contrary.
Does Secretary Powell believe that Obama will support a strong military?
October 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
This is a fantastic analysis — one of the best Blogs I’ve read yet on the Powell endorsement (and by this time, I’ve read an awful lot of them). Eloquent and insightful — a rare combo these days.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
What may be even more interesting is what Powell said after Meet the Press was over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LbLxja4UHY
October 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Quick! Turn on Sean Hannity–right now!
From an email to me:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Watch Sean Hannity? I’d have to get a lobotomy first. He must be bringing Andy Martin back.
October 19th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Hey Woody. I notice that the one thing Hannity isn’t touching is the economy. Any reason for that? I mean I’m sure most of America is watching spellbound to see the Weathermens next move and all….
Marc, you said it perfectly this time. Powells “so what” if Obama was Arab or muslim was brave and new and bold.
But I too will never forgive his rush to war, and more importantly his continued denial of his responsibility in pushing that agenda.
October 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I saw a few minutes of the Hannity hit job. It wasn’t impressive.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Rob, I haven’t notice Obama talking about taking the troops out of Iraq immediately lately, either. What about his being wrong on the surge?
When does he start fighting global warming? He also hasn’t talked about that job killing, budget busting program lately.
How about the war on terror? He hasn’t mentioned it. I guess he’s going to call his friends and tell them to call it off. Professional courtesy, you know.
Those issues are still there, and Obama has no experience in solving them. He doesn’t even mention them.
Once he won the nomination, he told the lefties at Move-on to kiss off, or at least has pretended to with a wink of his eye, hoping to fool enough voters that he is a centrist.
I can’t believe that you guys are suckers for the tax cuts that aren’t cuts. Who in their right mind would believe that a Democrat could lie enough to win the tax cut contest against a Republican?
Obama’s New Motto: “Spread the wealth. It beats working.”
October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Woody, we here are all hoping Obama isn’t a centrist. We’re hoping after the election he’ll be the most lefty president ever. Also, he was never wrong on the surge. It still sucks.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Howie, Hannity can’t even do a hit job correctly. The only difference between him and the McCain campaign is that he formally receives a paycheck from the often mispronounced Fox News instead of being its official presidential candidate. That’s why Fox News watchers believe the kind of stuff Hannity spreads.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Woody can’t believe that intelligent, decent people aren’t as stupid and vile as he is.
And Hannity’s piece will persuade people who think just like Woody not to vote for Obama. Oh, wait …
October 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Woody, we here are all hoping Obama isn’t a centrist. We’re hoping after the election he’ll be the most lefty president ever.
If that’s what you’re hoping for, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. Rather than hoping for Obama to be this or that, people will need to work hard to push his administration — which is a different thing — to the left, and to promote a progressive agenda locally as well as globally.
Also, he was never wrong on the surge. It still sucks.
He was never wrong that the surge was not the way to achieve its stated political objective. He has repeatedly stated that it reduced the violence.
But the only reason we’re talking about this is that you are answering a claim by a vile despicable lying stupid troll — doing so is not advised.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I’m aware that I shouldn’t answer Woody, and recently at least I usually haven’t, but he’s arguing as though all Obama supporters are being duped because he’s farther left of center than he appears, when the majority of his supporters are hoping that’s true and the rest are aware that his policies are better for them but are unaware that it constitutes people like Woody’s idea of, um, evil.
I recently read a list of six questions to ask yourself to be a happier person. One, probably the most important, was “what is my end goal?” A very good example they used was asking yourself that question when arguing online. What is my goal with responding to Woody? To inform him that his arguments won’t work on this particular website because most of us support the policies and world view that he despises. This is why I do not visit right-wing websites and try to tell them their world view is wrong. For one, it’s subjective, and two, it’s futile. So I would recommend Woody ask himself that same question. What is his end goal on Marc’s website? He doesn’t have to answer to me; he can just answer to himself. But if his answer is to persuade us that we’re wrong, he might want to find something more productive to do instead. If his goal is to annoy us or provoke anger, which would make him a troll by its very definition, then on some of here it’s working and others it is not.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Something doesn’t quite add up about Woody.
Note that he is the only conservative in the entire world who has taken the time to read and participate on this blog.
Some others: GM Roper, Bob Williams and Jim R have, from time to time, barfed up some talking points or half-wit snark, but none have ever engaged in a to and fro on the blog. (GM Roper did get into a name-calling thing with reg once, but that’s the only exception I recall.) Samuel Stott drops by now and then to recite his Ayn Rand for Dummies sonnets, but he never actually engages the conversation.
Moreover, if you spend any time on right-wing or right-leaning blogs, you will see that either most or all participants tolerate no liberal dissent. They immediately call for banning any commenters and routinely repeat their belief that they should be entitled to spout criticisms of liberals without having to have liberals respond.
As redundant, petty, uninformed, irrational and boring Woody is, at least he actually participates in a left-center blog, which is something no other conservative we know of has done.
I’m not suggesting Woody deserves any kind of credit for contributing to the blog, because, actually, I think he misrepresents conservatives as being widely uninformed and illogical.
It is at least curious, though, that he chooses to participate and mix it up with the regulars. Very unusual behavior for a wingnut.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
While we’re on the subject…I have been disappointed by Obama’s defensiveness on the whole “spreading wealth” thing in the last debate. I would have answered that by saying that the notion of a progressive income tax, dating back to, um, a Republican named Abe Lincoln is, in fact, a core American value and long, long consensual tradition. It’s either that or a flat tax and last time we looked an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the latter.
We, in fact, spread the wealth every day by taxing people who make $500k a year at much different rates than those who make $15k. That’s so we can all benefit equally (on paper at least from such things as public schools, social security, highways and roads and, yes, Bradley fighting vehicles and F-16′s). I was hoping that Obama would have politely turned to McCain and asked him head on if he was now opposing a progressive income tax and was he, in fact, saying that Cindy McCain, backed by her alcohol fortune, should pay the same tax rate as a janitor sweeping her brewery floor and struggling to pay his or mortgage. Or, better yet, do you even notice such nuances when one is wacked out on Vicodin?
Spread the wealth? Yes!
I also note that Joe the Deadbeat came off as –I’m sorry to say– not only selfish and ignornant, but also sort of deaf. Obama went right into the weeds with him in their original recorded rope line exchange and explained that, in fact, IF Joe was even gonna net $250K a year (instead of his current $40k), his tax rate would go up from 36% to 39%… a gross rise of 3% on any income ABOVE the quarter of a million mark. But that all went whoosh right over Deadbeat Joe’s head who, unfazed by any facts, just kept on blathering about how the Dems were gonna bankrupt his imaginary business. If had been listening, he would have heard that under the WORST of conditions his tax obligation on the $250k he doesnt even have might have gone up a whopping few hundred dollars or so…Sorry but these difefrences of 2-3 points are totally insignificant sums of money for families that clear a quarter a million dollars or more after taking all their itemized deductions. I wish all I had to worry about on April 15 was an additional or fewer 3 points. What an inane national sideshow.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
he’s arguing as though …
He’s arguing as if he were a vile despicable lying stupid troll. Why do you care what the underlying assumptions of such a person are?
all Obama supporters are being duped because he’s farther left of center than he appears, when the majority of his supporters are hoping that’s true
No, they aren’t. And if they were, then the majority of Obama’s supporters would be ignorant fools.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
We, in fact, spread the wealth every day
To his great credit Powell made this very point. Has any other Republican in history ever pointed out that all taxation is redistribution of wealth, and repudiated the notion that redistribution is “socialism”?
October 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“I have been disappointed by Obama’s defensiveness on the whole “spreading wealth” thing in the last debate.”
Ditto. This should be a no-brainer to simply assert why we have a progressive tax structure in the first place. Taxes are, by definition, redistributive. Personally, with what the US has in arrears; 2 wars, etc, etc, I’d prefer it if Obama offered even smaller tax cuts, if any. I’m guessing Obama’s folks might be figuring that any sentence uttered now by BO that mentions a higher tax rate on higher earners spawns a new set a talking points out of the McCain camp (something McCain desperately needs). If the GOP and the nutters can blow as much wind on the cold coals of the Ayers thingy, god knows they’ll say just about anything at this point. So there’s probably a ‘glide position’ politically calculated to Nov 4.
Still, hearing the line of thinking joe the dreamer came up with when he met Obama does reveal a fairly naive understanding about basic economics and taxation. One has to do a lot of head scratching and squinting trying to estimate how pervasive this ‘joe’ POV extends. Some remedial education on a national scale is in order if we’re ever to address the nation’s economic problems as adults.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Let’s compare Howie’s statement to the opposite from the Chicago Tribune:
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
The Trib is likely right — unless progressives push the Obama administration hard. As the Trib notes: His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a “University of Chicago Democrat”–a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets. There are numerous other areas, such as his attitudes about Israel and Iran, where he will disappoint progressives who sit back and “hope” that he does the right thing instead of actively injecting themselves into the political process. One of Obama’s outstanding qualities is that he invites that involvement: “What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.”
October 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Taxes are, by definition, redistributive. Personally, with what the US has in arrears; 2 wars, etc, etc, I’d prefer it if Obama offered even smaller tax cuts, if any.
By the time you got to your second sentence, you seem to have forgotten the first. I would prefer it if Obama offered even greater tax increases on those making over $250,000 (net, Joe the Fool) to pay for those arrears without reducing the middle class tax cuts.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I’m guessing Obama’s folks might be figuring that any sentence uttered now by BO that mentions a higher tax rate on higher earners spawns a new set a talking points out of the McCain camp (something McCain desperately needs).
All Obama need do is remind people that the average Joe doesn’t make $250,000 dollars, and reinforce that by pointing out that Joe the Republican himself doesn’t make nearly that much, so McCain is lying (what a surprise) when he says that Obama would increase Joe’s taxes.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
As redundant, petty, uninformed, irrational and boring Woody is, at least he actually participates in a left-center blog, which is something no other conservative we know of has done.
You don’t get a round much and you’re prone to extreme hyperbole. Even on this blog, John Moore immediately comes to mind. Elsewhere, such as Fivethirtyeight and Balloon Juice, there are plenty of participating Woody-like nuts.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:14 am
True enough, I don’t get around that much in blogland. Partly, that’s because every time I make a comment at a conservative blog, I get banned.
I’ll have to check out 538 and Balloon Juice if those are places people across the political spectrum mix it up…
John Moore did pinch a few loafs here, but, as I recall, as immediately busted for numerous blatant factual problems and has yet to return.
Sure, there are those who come in, fire off a few machine gun bursts in the air, then disappear back into the woodwork, but none consistently drop turds around like Woody does, day in, day out.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am
I think Obama has a pretty effective response on the tax thing. After all, he’s running against McCain right now, not running a symposium on tax policies:
McCain, trailing in the polls, fired the first volley, likening his rival to the socialist leaders of Europe and saying he wanted to “convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington.”
McCain added, “Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it’s just another government giveaway.”
Obama responded a few hours later in an appearance before an enormous crowd on the banks of the Mississippi River, saying his Republican rival “wants to cut taxes for the same people who have already been making out like bandits, in some cases literally.”
“John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” Obama said.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Regarding the update, I and other Americans are not against Muslims. We’re against Islamic terrorists. That’s a disconnect to you guys who try to link pro-life supporters to abortiion clnic bombers.
The liberal media never connects the word Islamic with terrorist, because they don’t want to “offend.” The last I looked, those bombing terrorists weren’t Presbyterians. But, political correctness is only used to please people on the left while leaving them open to attack people on the right.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:01 am
reg, a refundable tax credit, as Obama proposes, is not a tax cut. Under his plan, people who never paid a dime in a taxes can get back thousands of dollars, which were paid in by others who earned that money and had it taken from them with the force of government. That is far from a cut. It is a government giveaway. It’s buying votes with taxpayer money. It’s wrong.
The reason that lefties attack Joe the Plumber is because Obama’s tax answer to him, absent a teleprompter, exposed Obama for, let’s see, what do you call that form of government that Marc’s site blocks?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Speaking of using government and taxpayer money to buy political support, what position will Colin Powell have in an Obama administration? Colin Powell’s Career Plan
October 20th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Under Obama’s plan people who pay less than $200,000 will get a bit of a tax cut. And, of course, under Bush and Reagan’s tax plans, people who paid no taxes can get an earned income tax credit. And under McCain’s plan, someone who pays no taxes or very little, will get thousands of dollars to help pay for health insurance. So, presumably, Bush, Reagan and McCain also subscribe to S0cialism.
You are a remarkably stupid man. Your blather could qualify as demagogy – except nobody’s really listening. Guys like you are now officially a footnote to history. Dead man walking…
October 20th, 2008 at 6:29 am
McCain also, of course, has consistently supported tax policies which have sent checks to folks who have paid no taxes (EITC). But the best comment I’ve seen on what you denounce as “SOcialism” was when Ronald Reagan hailed it as “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
October 20th, 2008 at 6:49 am
An explanation, from Paul Krugman, of precisely why what McCain, Miss Alaska, idiots like Woody – and Joe the Plumber himself – say about Obama’s tax policies – and plumbers…and “average Joes”…are, not to put too fine a point on it, nothing but lies (and the kind of lies that are stretched so far, they can only be seen as deliberate and malicious):
http://tinyurl.com/5huatq
October 20th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Hey, Woody:
Still waiting for Hannity’s expose’ on exactly whom Jeff Gannon//James Guckert, male prostitute, visited in the WH those hundreds of unaccounted-for times.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Edited to add: ALLEGED escort, JGannon.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Oops?
Via Andrew Sullivan, The Eagle, of College Station Texas A&M fame, apparently endorsed Obama. However, attempts to navigate to The Eagle‘s page from either Sully or The Democratic Underground kicks up The page you are looking for no longer exists.
It would appear that The Democratic Underground captured part of the text:
Unfortunately, there is no Google cache, but a bit of evidence that Google might have had it at one time:
October 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“a refundable tax credit … is not a tax cut.”
That is assuming the recipient pays no sales tax, payroll tax, etc. The idea of the tax credit is not that it is an income tax credit, but that it a general tax refund. The income tax form is used because it contains information about who is eligible, low wage earners.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“…all taxation is redistribution of wealth…”
I’ve read some pretty stupid things on lefty and righty blogs from time to tiem, but that one takes the cake. But then, I surmise from his (her?) other posts that she (he?) is an Obama supporter so I’m really not surprised.
By the way, Hawaii has tried universal health care for 7 months then closed it down as “too expensive.” Seems that people who could afford their own, opted for the free. How does the experience of the Hawaiians predict the Obama plan? Disaster is what I suspect, though with the limitless power of uncle sugar to print money, I suspect hyper-inflation will be right around the corner.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Woody — “a refundable tax credit, as Obama proposes, is not a tax cut. Under his plan, people who never paid a dime in a taxes can get back thousands of dollars…It is a government giveaway. It’s buying votes with taxpayer money. It’s wrong.”
Paleocon to neocon, Woody, that’s wrong. Every worker pays payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are taxes. There is one Department of Treasury, and both payroll and income taxes go into it. Current payroll taxes pay for CURRENT retirees.
Proponents of SS privatization make these points time and again. They still hold true when discussing who pays federal taxes in the USA. ’nuff said.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Marc –
Great post – as strong and persuasive as Powell’s endorsement.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The Powell endorsement leaves the right wing slimers more than a little off kilter. How can one continue the implication that Obama is some kind of dangerous terrorist-sympathizer when he has the support of the most prominent military figure in American life? Oh, and he’s a Republican to boot. Not a lot of good reasons for why Powell might support some kind of anti-American socialist. Either Obama fooled him – not a terribly convincing line of argument about a Republican Secretary of State – or, as Woody tosses out, he’s more interested in voting based on skin color than policy and loyalty to America. Of course the third option – that both candidates are well within the mainstream of American politics and Powell picked his preferred choice is what grownups understand to be the truth. And poor McCain will have to stick to that line between his breathless accusations of “Ayers!” and “Socialist!”
October 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Just to quickly add an Amen to Marc and Rob and wonder aloud if Obama’s unwillingness to take a stand for popular liberal policies is simply election week caution, as Reg asserts, or an early indication of a presidency that will not deliver even the rhetorical support of a real progressive agenda. Hopefully, we shall see.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I finally got a chance to see the Powell endorsement this AM. I have to say, these are the kinds of conservatives I yearn to have as an opposition: thoughful, measured, nuanced, and intelligently indignant when called for. Moreover, this has nothing to do with his endorsing Obama. It just seems that people of this calibre have gone missing in recent iterations of the Republican party.
The increasingly shrill and desparate and eyes-agog rantings of the right leave me shaking my head more often than not, and wishing for an honorable opponent to talk to. How did the party get taken over by lunatics? Is it gerrymandering? Is it the influence of enigmatic evangelical end-times thumpers? Whatever it is, it’s a mystery to me. But if Colin Powell can come out of that party, and if people like him can exert any influence, there may yet be hope.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Listener: see http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/Barack-Obama-is-the-better-choice-for-president
Ordinarily, one would expect that sort of thing to come out on April 1, and on April 2 they would be explaining that, of course, they were joking. That this is a straight endorsement from The Eagle is quite remarkable — but they are in plentiful company this season.
As for WoW, he could well be even dumber than Woody. Here’s quote from Colin Powell:
Now I guess the message this week is we’re going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there’s nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying les, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don’t think is accurate.
Of course, since Powell is now “an Obama supporter”, WoW shouldn’t be “really surprised”.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Just to quickly add an Amen to Marc and Rob and wonder aloud if Obama’s unwillingness to take a stand for popular liberal policies is simply election week caution, as Reg asserts, or an early indication of a presidency that will not deliver even the rhetorical support of a real progressive agenda. Hopefully, we shall see.
I just have to wonder what universe people live in, that they think that Obama has demonstrated an “unwillingness to take a stand for popular liberal policies”. But “liberal policies” is not all liberal policies, or even equivalent to “a real progressive agenda”, whatever that is. Obama’s policy statements, as well as how he will actually govern, contain both progressive and non-progressive elements. As I’ve noted, how that sorts out will depend on us.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The Powell endorsement leaves the right wing slimers more than a little off kilter. How can one continue the implication that Obama is some kind of dangerous terrorist-sympathizer when he has the support of the most prominent military figure in American life? Oh, and he’s a Republican to boot. Not a lot of good reasons for why Powell might support some kind of anti-American socialist.
I’m sure it’s fun to make this stuff up as you go instead of actually observing reality, but they aren’t “off kilter” at all. Powell’s a negro, and never really was a true Republican. (Remember, not even McCain is a true Republican in their eyes, but Palin redeems the ticket.)
October 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
To reiterate this:
Just to quickly add an Amen to Marc and Rob and wonder aloud if Obama’s unwillingness to take a stand for popular liberal policies
You really should attend to this mental defect of yours. What Marc and Rob complained about was Obama’s timidity in defending his own statement.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Listening to Rush on the radio today was a hoot. They simply don’t know how to deal with Powells endorsement of Obama. Suddenly the wingnuts have all turned on their fav. black Republican. Claiming he was backing his black buddy Obama and nothing more.
Rush was playing snips of Powell at the UN making his famous WMD speech, interspersed with clips of Obama calling him a great man and advisor.
How laughable. Especially when to this day they all defended Powell on the UN speech and said he was acting on the “best intelligence available”.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Thanks for the link, passing through. The Aggies at A&M have a campus paper that came out and endorsed Obama. Surely the sky falls tomorrow. I’m lovin’ it.
Rob: They simply don’t know how to deal with Powells endorsement of Obama.
Yep. Good old fashioned cognitive dissonance. I’m lovin’ that, too.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
See if this doesn’t remind you of Woody, GmRoper and Rush Limbaugh – Is Powell a democrat or republican so we know if Powell is a military hero or traitor. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJHW2fiEJ44
‘
October 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Guys, Powell is a despicable liar whose career in the public eye started with cvoering up the My Lai massacre and ended with his laugahble speech to the UN justifying the invasion of Iraq. This is someone we want on our side?
October 20th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“This is someone we want on our side?”
It comes in kinda handy Stu when you have an anti-military left-wing lawyer trying to convince middle america he’s really not what his past associations and political positions would indicate he is, long enough to win an election.
For Powell to endorse a candidate that, if he had his way, would have handed america a great defeat and doomed the Iraqi people, and the american people to a lesser degree, to those worse than Saddam himself, I find suspicious.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
The more important advantage to a Powell endorsement of Obama, in case Obama is elected as Commander in Chief of our military, is it will lessen somewhat the demoralization of our military.
To think our military, general Betraeous in particular, may have to salute, and take orders from, this self-professed loser, has got to be one of the most demoralizing disasters to hit our forces since Vietnam.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Yeah, the military will be so demoralized, you know, having to leave Iraq and maybe see their family for the first time in three years and all. And oh my god how sad they’ll be when they are finally able to cash in on that beefed up GI Bill. Thanks for nothing, Obama.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Jim R — c’mon man. The IRAQI government has basically come out and said, “Um, America, we think we can carry on without your military in our country. Start packing. Give you about 2 years to make an orderly withdraw” What are we suppose to do? Argue with them?
Obama says we should get out of Iraq as responsibly as possible. I dunno. How’s Patreaus suppose to be bummed out by that exactly? Knock on wood, but we might not have to have our military shoot their way onto the last helicopter leaving the embassy.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:14 am
Suddenly the wingnuts have all turned on their fav. black Republican.
They’ve turned their back on Alan Keyes? Or Clarence Thomas?
Social liberal Powell was never anything like the wingnuts’ fav. black Republican.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Marc says: “…that Cindy McCain, backed by her alcohol fortune, should pay the same tax rate as a janitor sweeping her brewery floor and struggling to pay his or mortgage. Or, better yet, do you even notice such nuances when one is wacked out on Vicodin?”
Whats really creepy is Cindy/Barbie on the stump with Palin bobbing her head like a dummy in approval to all the gibber Palin spews. Apparently Barbie also demonstrated incredible stupidity and insensitivity by denying PTSD that so many vets suffer.
The Dems blow so many instances to take advantage of running juicy attack ads–like the idea of a “whacked out on Vicodin”, prescription drug addict and thief as First Lady.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Obama’s first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of people who want a free ride, he’ll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it’s head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief … to blindly follow him … never challenge him … and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it’s ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not … but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification, and getting something for nothing, is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that even if you get hungry, you never eat your seed crop … unless you want it to be your last meal. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it’s citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong … elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I liked so much my honeymoon vacations
. I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:27 am
Eu já disse que eu amo Couch Surfing?