Powell, a retired Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush before becoming secretary of state in the current administration, is one of the most highly decorated military officers of modern times and an admired figure in both parties. The Obama campaign is likely to cite the endorsement as an answer to critics and undecided voters who have questioned the foreign policy credential of Obama, a first-term senator whose national experience amounts to four years in the Senate.
Powell said a major part of his decision to turn his back on his own party was his conclusion that Obama was the better option to repair frayed U.S. relations with allies overseas.
“This is the time for outreach,” Powell said, saying the next president would have to “reach out and show the world there is a new administration that is willing to reach out.”
In particular, he said, he welcomed Obama’s president to “talk to people we haven’t talked to,” a reference to Obama’s controversial statement that he would be open to direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders.
I once had a great deal of respect for Colin Powell. I would have voted for him to become the President.
But he has just made a tremendous change in his political loyalties and his political beliefs and or the ideologies that he will accept.
Apparently, he is letting his bitterness toward the person Bush and those of Bush’s team whom he feels ‘under cut’ him as Secretary of State, over ride the obvious questions that Obama still has not answered regarding who he, Obama, is in terms of his political ideology and his long-term association with persons who are leaders radical African-American ethnocentrism.
His acceptance of Obama’s detailed involvement with Bill Ayers, a known and unrepentant terrorist who ranks equally with Timothy McVeigh, causes me to question his, Powell’s, current level of rationality.
Coupling this with the emerging threats to the United States and the need for objective and non-partisan military and diplomatic leadership in the face of extremely serious threats to our national security leads me to hope that Powell is not given a position of leadership in an Obama administration.
I’ll trade you one former GOP Secretary of State endorsing Obama for one former Democratic vice presidential running mate endorsing McCain, and let’s call it even. The kinds of things that Powell said about McCain and the GOP are about on par with what Joe Lieberman has said about Obama and the Democratic Party.
Lots of theories on this. Powell wants to get his street creds back after being part of the Bush administration. Powell is good friends with Ted Stevens, and does not like Palin because she is not. Powell want to get back into government. Or perhaps he just like Obama better than McCain. What makes it hard to understand is that Obama isn’t worthy by experience, ability, or training to polish Colin Powell’s stars, who in a reasonable world would be the Democrat candidate. And Powell knows this, which makes it so perplexing.
I was once moved to tears by an address I saw Powell give. I thought that, even though I disagreed with the man on any number of issues, I never doubted his sincerity and heart. That changed once it became clear that he stood by and said nothing as any number of people were dragged before a grand jury to discover who leaked information on Valerie Plame, all the while knowing it was his subordinate, Richard Armitage, who had done so.
Now I think that Colin Powell is most interested in Colin Powell.
#5: Even stranger, Obama has said that Powell ‘lied us into war.”
Obama launched his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq War.
How could Obama accept such an endorsement in good con – oh, ok.
Suddenly, the good General has lost his mind. Perhaps the battle was too much for him. I cannot understand why former officers insert themselves into the thick of political choices publically, even ones who were adminstration leaders. This will alienate as much as it helps. I admire General Powell for many things but not for this. He is chosing a novice over a much more seasoned and good reasoning candidate who will do a work that balances the difficulties of State engagements with strength and good faith. It’s hard to believe Colin Powell, really, but you could see it coming.
#7: That Powell is a former General is less newsworthy in this matter than the fact that he is a former Secretary of State–that’s what makes this a bit more important than the opinions of Wes Clark or William Crowe.
The General is a good man who made a bad call.
COLUMCIL,
Perhaps the Good General is suffering from Post-Tramautic Stress Disorder? This is the only explanation I could think of for his irrationally endorsing Obama.
I cannot bring myself to vote for Obama. Having said that, I had to agree with much of what General Powell said to Tom Brokaw this morning. The Republican Party is the author of it own demise, and that is very sad. I will vote for John McCain; he is one of my heroes. Colin Powell remains one as well.
[blockquote]No one has yet addressed the endorsement on the merits. All ad hominem. Lesson: when someone disagrees with you, attack his character and motives. [/blockquote]
Based on what I read in the linked piece, there are no merits to Powell’s endorsement. Powell seems to be primarily upset about the following:
1) Sarah Palin. He says she’s not ready to be President, but he does not mention her executive resume is far more fleshed out than that of the fellow he is endorsing, and he’s at the top of the ticket whereas Palin is not.
2) Republicans asserting Obama is a Muslim. I’ve seen some assertions to that fact on the internet, bolstered by documentation from Obama’s primary school in Indonesia declaring him as such. But nothing has been forthcoming from any official Republican organ that I’ve seen. It’s a red herring, and even Powell says “so what if he is.” Strike two.
3) Revulsion over the “alleged” connection of Obama to Bill Ayers. There’s nothing “alleged” about the relationship. It’s gone on for over 20 years and the alliance has been deep. Coupled with Obama’s decades of huddling with America-hating preachers, his alliance with the hard-left New Party, his invitation to vote-fraudsters at ACORN to come craft policy in his administration, etc., it doesn’t seem to be particularly out of bounds to question Obama’s relationship with a wild-eyed Capitol/Pentagon bomber who spends his days now praising no-neck satraps like Hugo Chavez and striving to radicalize the US education system. In other words, Powell is full of it.
Matt, I believe you’re seeing ad hominem attacks where there are none. I heard Powell’s interview, and I found it strange. The most obvious question Brokaw could have asked was about Obama’s opposition to the surge and his consistent denial that the surge worked. Obama would have had us out of Iraq before we had a chance to do our best effort for the Iraqi people. Powell focused heavily on what he considers troubling about the mentality of the Republican party, seemingly characterizing the entire party as bigots. I guess he hasn’t heard any of the screaming accusations of racism which are so rampant in the Democrat circles, not to mention the character assassinations against Sarah Palin. He’s being mighty selective in his criticism. He says his choice is not based on race, but some of his comments of the recent past call that into question.
#3 Matt, to the contrary I think Senator McCain has spent the last 15 years presenting substantial ideas in an attempt to reform his party and the government. As for demagoguery, where is the gravitas in Senator Obama’s campaign? Oh, vote against Bush and therefore for me.
Secondly, why would it be an ad hominem attack on Colin Powell to consider this endorsement peculiar behavior? What does Obama hope to gain for the United States by saying today, as a candidate, that as President he will talk to anyone without condition? How might such a statement bind foreign policy tomorrow? More to the point, what is its effect today when we still have an elected administration in the White House and men and women in harm’s way in the military and diplomatic corps? All politics is local, but the ripples may be felt far and wide. Powell has the experience to know this. So, one has to wonder at the wording of this endorsement. There is nothing ad hominem to be surprised at Powell’s action.
So, would it be ad hominem to voice suspicion of Powell’s intent? While I have no idea what may have gone on in private between Powell and the Republican administration, neither do I know what may be stated privately between Obama and his endorsers. Perhaps like Transformers there is something more than meets the eye, here.
Matt T. (#11) said,
“All ad hominem. Lesson: when someone disagrees with you, attack his character and motives.”
Well Matt, Colin Powell said,
“…Republicans’ recent focus on Obama’s alleged connections to William Ayers, the founder of the radical ’60 Weather Underground.”
Matt, Obama’s connections to Ayers are not “alleged,” they are a matter of fact and they are long-standing. The Ayers issue is one of the critical issues that Obama has not ‘come clean on.’
Ayers is an unrepentant anti-American terrorist as reveled by his own utterances.
Obama says that his association with Ayers only had to do with educational matters. Well, suppose he had been asssociating with a member of the Ku Klux Klan on purely educational matters, would you call those connections “alleged” connections?
And further, just what sort of ‘education’ do you think an anti-American unrepentant terrorist might deem appropriate for school children?
Do you think that it might include subtle anti-American ‘indoctrination’ rather than broadly based ‘education?’
[blockquote]Do you think that it might include subtle anti-American ‘indoctrination’ rather than broadly based ‘education?’ [/blockquote]
Indeed, Ayers is on record praising the politicized educational “reforms” of socialist thug Hugo Chavez. Are Obama’s plans for education along the lines of what Ayers thinks? If not, why did he spend so much time in an alliance with Ayers on educational issues?
#16 et al…
So, what kind of connections do you think these are? It appears that they are not terribly significant compared to, say, his connections with Jeremiah Wright. Or McCain’s relationship with “kill ’em with a head shot” G. Gordon Liddy–who, by the way, probably has more people listening to him via his radio show than W. Ayers has in his graduate seminars.
Well, whatever….it appears that the conclusion that the majority of the American people have come to is the same as that announced by Colin Powell (or Christopher Buckley, Douglas Kmiec, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, et. al), despite the scare-tactics of…well, you know.
And # 11 has it right: Instead of wondering “Gee, I wonder if Powell is right?”, it’s “he’s a traitor/PTSD-nut/disappointment/deluded anti-Bushite.” Few wonder if they might be, *gasp* wrong! Whitened sepulchre’s anyone?
Folks, for a readily understandable and contemporary example of ad hominem, I would refer you to the attacks by the Obama campaign and Obama surrogates on Joe the Plumber.
Not sure his endorcement with help Obama
I think Mr. Powell is trying to “atone” for is sins about the Iraq war. He was forced to say what he did at the UN by W. I have never trusted Mr. Powell since. One must stand up to your superiors on such an important thing as going to war without any proof of WMD.
#22.
You might want to provide some corroboration in the form of, say internet links. Why don’t you start here:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/sick-left-now-fantasizes-about-joe.html
After all has been said, I think we need to remember the old saying which says “Be careful about what you ask for. You just might get it.”
I have some thoughts regarding our current comments about Powell’s endorsement and something that demographic statistics indicate has been evolving over the past fifteen years or more.
As a nation, we seem to be leaving behind the pre-1960s era in which political debate was strong, argumentive and focused on realistic solutions and entering an era in which ‘sides have been taken’ and the only object of political activity seems to be ‘winning’ as opposed to doing what’s best for our country.
Part of this “winning” seems to include a tendency/desire for the “winning” side to impose its ‘will’ on the losing minority. This appears to be more of a Democrat tendency/desire than a Republican one. The Republicans appear to be just an unorganized herd of office seekers with no clear and uniting direction.
This modern Democrat tendency impose a “dictatorship of the majority” in which the minority is forced to submit to the populist “will” of the majority, even if that majority is only 50.01% to 49.99% is a dangerous behavior.
Within the past three presidential election cycles, the demographics of the American political scene have become clearly defined as the “blue” desely populated urban centers and the “red” areas constituting the rest of the country.
This confrontastion that iis now taking place mostly between the “blue” and the “red” populations. The confrontation involves real differences involving our national values, politics, sense of national identity, willingness to sacrifice for the ideals of our Constition, traditions and our work ethics and the “blue” and “red” areas are drifting farther and farther apart.
It will only take a few autocratic actions by a populist majority that disregards or suppresses the minority to bring this pot to a boil. This can result in serious problems, particularly in the areas of interpretation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights guarantees.
This desire to impose the populist “will” of the Democrat majority on the Republican/independent minority is also becoming increasingly clear in the area of social policy. Who should be taxed, who shouldn’t be taxed, taxing the wealthy more than the less wealthy, redistribution of earned income to those who did not earn that income, etc.
And there is also an emerging dichotomy regarding our country’s natioanl security. We now have leading Democrat politicians who are willing/eager to expose our country to the extreme hazards of “trusting” our enemies, particularly those enemies whose stated goal is the destruction of the United States. Enemies who are preparing themselves for war against us, both in open combat and economically.
Ten years ago I would not have had these thoughts, but today, they seem to be emerging out of our politics.
As a final note, I add that I am not a Republican, I am an independent.
From MSNBC.
“But as he examined both campaigns in the last few weeks, he said, he became “concerned†that “in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure how to deal with the economic problems.â€
“Every day, there was a different approach,†he said, adding that he also “would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court.â€
I do wonder how much Powell’s pro abortion sentiments influenced his decision.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian [13]. First, there are other prominent and well-respected Republicans who believe that Palin is not ready for the White House. Peggy Noonan is an excellent example. There are many others, including the editorial pages of a number of papers that had endorsed Bush in 2004 such as the Denver Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Kansas City Star, the Southwest News-Herald (Ill.), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Salt Lake Tribune. [/blockquote]
You miss the point. By every measure, the “unqualified” Sarah Palin, the VPOTUS candidate, is more qualified than the POTUS candidate on the opposing ticket. Powell ignores this, as do the newspapers you cited. They don’t even attempt to make a side-by-side comparison. What are Obama’s qualifications that so enamored Powell?
[blockquote]Second, Obama is not a Muslim. He has publicly professed his belief in Jesus Christ and in His resurrection. The school that Obama attended as a child in Indonesia was a public school that did not focus on religion. As if Obama’s childhood in the most populous Muslim in the country is something he was trying to hide. And, yes, Jeffersonian, you can find lots of rumors on the internet. I hope you don’t believe all of them. [/blockquote]
Again, you miss the point. Powell says he’s put off by Republican assertions that Obama is a Muslim. Can he point to any A- or B-list Republicans saying this? As I said, it’s a red herring.
[blockquote]Third, Powell did not claim that Ayers and Obama don’t know each other, but that the connection implies nothing about Obama’s loyalty to his country or his capacity to lead. You obviously disagree with that contention. But to claim that Powell is losing his grip on his “rationality†IS ad hominem. After all, the majority of the American people say that the Ayers connection is NOT important to their vote. [/blockquote]
You’re ventriloquizing Powell, Matt. The article doesn’t even quote Powell re Ayers, so we don’t know what his specific objection is. And the majority of the American public has no idea of the depth of Obama’s relationship with this terrorist-turned-tenured radical. Obama himself is so reluctant to discuss it that he tried to say he was “just a guy who lives in his neighborhood,” which we all know is utterly false. Don’t you think that if John McCain had spent 20 years voluntarily working with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber on ways to spread a radical anti-abortion message through public schools, it would be important?
IOW, Matt, Powell can endorse whomever he wishes, but his reasons ring hollow.
“This modern Democrat tendency impose a ‘dictatorship of the majority’ in which the minority is forced to submit to the populist ‘will’ of the majority, even if that majority is only 50.01% to 49.99% is a dangerous behavior” —Anglican First [#26]
-1- As part of their K Street Project, House Republican leaders like Gingrich, DeLay, and Armey sought to de-fund the Democratic Party by penalizing corporations that gave money to Democrats. What do you think of that? (FYI, the Gingrich gang hurt itself so badly by shutting down the government that it could not carry out this part of the plan.)
-2- What do you think of the Judicial Nomination Nuclear Option propounded the Bush Administration and Senate Republicans in 2005 (and never retracted)? Under this view, you cannot filibuster a presidential appointment. The president can, with just 51 Senators, fill every federal judgeship. What do you think of the Nuclear Option?
Here’s a question for you all to kick around–would Powell have endorsed Hillary?
“Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims”.
While it’s true it’s not fair to paint all Muslims with the same brush, has this man forgotten it was Muslims orchestrating 9/11 and other terrorist attacks? I realize that not all Muslims are radical Islamists, but it is a true statement to say that all radical Islamists are Muslims, and there are a lot of Muslims who don’t speak out against that.
Fact is, too, Obama does seem to “pal around”, to quote Sarah Palin, with some ethically-challenged people who hold seriously radical views:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2293196/pinch-yourself.thtml
“Obama said in an interview airing Monday on NBC’s TODAY that he welcomed Powell’s support and looked forward to discussing what role, if any, Powell might have in an Obama administration should he be elected”.
AAAAHHH–THE “Rub”…
I have a friend who has worked seriously and well at high levels of government, on a slew of international affairs. He says that Palin’s pluck and executive experience are what matters; the rest she can learn. She has more executive experience than the top and bottom of the Democratic ticket.
And she has courage–which is more than I can say for a black man in this country who is actually QUALIFIED, even if you don’t agree with him, to run for president. I would have voted for him on either ticket.
Whether he cares to know or not, this peon has just lost any respect she ever had for Colin Powell. It should be him, not the questionable Obama, on the ticket, and the general has now lowered himself to only spiteful, unfounded partisan attacks on national television.
[blockquote]As part of their K Street Project, House Republican leaders like Gingrich, DeLay, and Armey sought to de-fund the Democratic Party by penalizing corporations that gave money to Democrats. What do you think of that? [/blockquote]
I think that’s the sort of thing that has gotten the Republicans wandering the electoral wilderness for quite some time, I predict. But then again, what are the Champions of the {non-uppity-plumber} Little Guy doing taking sacks full of cash from those corporate pirates in neckties?
[blockquote]centrist[/blockquote]
You’ve got to be joking. Obama is hard left, as his voting record attests to.
[blockquote]Second, insinuations that Obama is Muslim (or a terrorist, or anti-American, which is the same thing to many on the right) have been made repeatedly by top local Republican officials introducing McCain or Palin at their rallies. Over-emphasis on the middle name has been particularly stark, as well as a willingness to conflate his last name with bin Laden’s first. The YouTube evidence is out there; I wish I had time to find more (example, example). These are not national GOP officials … but what’s the difference? [/blockquote]
The difference is that Powell intimated that it was Republicans calling Obama a Muslim. Now we see you saying it’s “top Republican officials,” only to quickly downgrade it to the use of Obama’s middle name by people who are not Republican officials. That’s quite a climb-down.
I wonder what Colin Powell thinks of Obama’s “Christian” pastor.
[blockquote]Third, I don’t think that the link to Ayers is as serious as you and everyone on the right make it sound. Powell agrees with me. So do the American people in poll after poll. [/blockquote]
Again, absent an investigation into those ties and a wide distribution of the findings, polls are going to reflect ignorance more than a true view of the relationship.
Lastly, I wonder why it counts less to Powell being governor of a state with a budget many times that of Obama’s campaign? A governor with an 80% approval rating, including 75% of Democrats, I might add.
Something else is at work here.
Above, Kendall posted a letter to the editor about lack of trust. This is another man I don’t trust. The only point of an endorsement is to extend the reputation of the endorser to the endorsed. Colin Powell abjectly lied about Iraq. Moreover, in his earlier role during Gulf War I he stood by while Iraq was massacring Kurds.
I no longer trust Colin Powell – this endorsement is meaningless.
#26 has said the most sensible thing on this run of partisan posts.
And one last thing about the contention that running a good campaign constitutes meaningful executive experience. Doesn’t that beg the question by assuming that, if one wins the election, one has run a good campaign and is therefore qualified? By that measure, if McCain/Palin win, are they not therefore qualified?
“Obama is hard left”
Jeffersonian [#35]: What do you mean by “hard left”?
“Hard left” sounds like someone well to the left of Ralph Nader, the U.S. Green Party, and Bernie Sanders.
“Hard left” sounds like someone well to the left of the New Democratic Party of Canada and the German Green Party.
“Hard left” sounds like a doctrinaire Marxist, such as President Evio Morales of Bolivia.
“Hard left” sounds like an unrepentant radical like Angela Davis.
Is this how you view Obama?
“That said, I think you’re wrong. Obama is obviously a brilliant administrator. His campaign has been massive AND flawless”.
Oh, get real. If that’s even true, I would say that Axelrod is a brilliant administrator, as the campaign manager runs the campaign, not the candidate.
And, I’m in full agreement with Jeffersonian. Obama has never done anything to indicate he holds “centrist” positions, other than talking out of both sides of his mouth. Are you saying that if he does talk out of both sides, he ends up meeting in the middle? :-/
Puh-leeze…
Gen Powell again asserts that Obama has been a “life-long Christian.” Last week we received a phone call from an Obama paid supporter assuring us that he is a “life-long committed Christian who will lower taxes.” If he were a “life long committed Christian” wouldn’t that be obvious? As scrutinized as he has been, would we not be able to look at his life and say, “Ah, he’s a life long committed Christian.” We wouldn’t need this talking point repeated over and over.
As for the other statements made by Powell, they are undifferentiated from the standard points made by every Obama spokesperson which makes me think Gen. Powell is not being as principled as he would portray himself to be.
That’s a very good thing to wonder about, #27. One more time, for emphasis:
http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama'sAbortion Extremism_.xml
The above is difficult to square with Powell’s claim as stated in #41.
Not sorry for the length, in this case.
Wonder who is going to be SecState — Leiberman or Powell? Guess it depends on who wins.
General Powell’s political cowardice shrieks volumes in complaining about a governor elected to serve again and again who answered the call of their political party.
The recommendation of this man who could have been the first African American nominee as President or Vice President of the USA and who rejected that call to serve has no value at all. I would have voted for Colin Powell.
“Complaining about a governor elected to serve again and again who answered the call of their political party” —#46
Apart from a ward heeler, who would think answering the call of your political party would exempt you from criticism?
Notice how Republicans who endorse Obama (e.g., Colin Powell and Doug Kmiec) aren’t allowed to have honest motivations?
But I’m curious: what exactly is crooked about Chris Buckely’s endorsement? Will he get to tell funny stories at an O-nauguration?
I’ll bet there is a very simple explanation if you blow all the smoke away. Powell is betting that Obama will win and that will be his ticket to regaining the Secy. of State job again so he can thumb his nose at W and/or Daddy.
Also, McCain/Pailin have their Joe the Plumber and Obama/Biden have Bill the Bomber (or at least Obama does).
So, I guess if he were to become the next Sec’y of State, Gen. Powell could quickly clear this little problem up:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445952046648609.html
“Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslimsâ€.
Obama is NOT ‘a lifelong Christian’. He was not raised a Christian but was taken to the mosque by his Muslim stepfather. He began attending Wright’s church in his 20’s – the very church and pastor that Christopher Hitchens so bitterly denounced.
How much Christian faith and teaching mean to Obama is hard to say. Nothing, as far as unborn children are concerned.
It’s a political endorsement. It’s political, y’know? #49, I would certainly prefer Powell as a repeat Sec. State than have John Kerry.
I’m not participating much on these threads now because I’m beginning to lose respect for some folks, and that’s distressing. Perhaps we should all take a breather since we’re not convincing each other of anything, just yelling.
I must respond to only one statement in all this, from Matt Thompson at #43: “If there were any real, relevant substance to Obama’s and Ayers’ relationship, wouldn’t it be fully exposed in the media?” No, Matt, it wouldn’t be.
I have read extensive materials quoting Ayers himself on education and his aims, and I have read Stanley Kurtz’s investigations of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s work with Ayers on these “educational” projects. Ayers is still a revolutionary; he’s given up bombs and turned to indoctrination in the schools as his preferred tool. Funding from the Woods Foundation, on which board Obama served with Ayers, and from the CAC, on which Obama and Ayers worked together for years, Obama as the funding chair and Ayers as chair of the ideological steering committee, went not to schools but to “partner” organizations. These partners provided programs intended to teach students about the evils of capitalism and about the evils of Western Civilization, encouraging black students to reject “white” society and turn to an Afrocentric (and historically preposterous) belief model. This last view is congruent with the teachings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which Obama has said were so important to his spiritual formation. CAC’s self-evaluation showed the funding had no effect whatsoever on achievement in any CAC school; that is, by its own assessment, the CAC was a flat failure.
It is quite possible that those reading these materials might come to a different conclusion than I have. However, the mainstream news media have failed to even present the information to the general public, although Kurtz’s analyses are well-documented.
Where the news media have failed is in their choice of materials to present, and these failures are egregious in this campaign season.
Thank you, #52! The very sentence you responded to, “….wouldn’t it be fully exposed in the media?” is the same one that seized me, but I was not going to take the time to respond. Now you have. Kurtz has looked into this carefully, diligently, and reported in some detail, which must be considered in a fair deliberation on the ties of Obama and Ayers/Dohrn. But it has been studiously ignored by the MSM. Having lived in Chicago several years just prior to the times of the CAC, I’m inclined to recognize Kurtz is on to something.
Colin Powell, like John McCain and me, was shaped by the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. However, the General may not be aware that the revisionist church has lobbied publicly for abortion-on-demand, including the partial-birth abortion procedure and can no longer claim moral status for the unborn.
In this regard, Senator Obama’s commitment to abortion-on-demand without restriction, a pro-choice Congress and the tacit blessing of National Cathedral will create a new identity for the United States and one that in time will not serve us well.
[url=http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=]Here[/url] is Kurtz’s very latest on Obama’s ties to the New Party and ACORN as recently as his first run for the Illinois Senate in the mid 90s. Yes, it’s in National Review, which is a conservative magazine. A full discussion of Obama’s career and ties should be in the national press, for people to make their own decisions, but it won’t be, because the press is deciding for voters that “it doesn’t matter.” Wouldn’t you rather make that decision for yourself?
Matt, I am indeed glad to know that you have read some of Kurtz’s writings, even with a critical eye. He works for a conservative think tank, and so yes, of course he went to the CAC records looking for something bad. I think he found more than you think he did. Obama’s writings in his “Dreams from my Father” support the radical left mindset which would make Ayers’ ideas entirely congenial, and so I find it hard to believe that their association is only casual.
Add to that that foundations during Obama’s tenure on the boards sent nearly $2 million to Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop. For three years, during Obama’s tenure at CAC, the Small Schools Workshop and the CAC [url=http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2907]shared an office[/url] on the third floor of a modest-sized Chicago building. Do I assume that Obama never saw Ayers in the same office?
To your questions, I would answer that Obama is being less than candid about his associations with the New Party, with Ayers, and with ACORN. He worked with these more closely than he has admitted, and his writings show thinking consistent with the approach these people take. Why does he deny it? So, yes, he should have publicly disassociated himself from these connections and from the Rev. Wright before running for President, or he should give us some convincing explanation of why he no longer agrees with their approaches, or at a minimum say he worked with these folks while disagreeing with their ideas and tactics.
And these discussions should be taking place in the context of investigative reporting in the major news media, presenting Obama’s career and connections to the public so it can make decisions on their importance, as you and I have done.
“The most important aspect of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama may be its impact on Sen. John McCain’s ability to take control of the news cycle with just two weeks until Election Day” —Political Wire
“Colin Powell’s endorsement stings McCain from a few different directions: with independent voters, with Republicans, with anyone thinking about Obama but harboring a final few doubts. For several precious days, perhaps, it keeps McCain from changing the subject…. The map continuing to slip, his opponent continuing to pour it on, party unity crumbling, McCain needs to break through the queasiness in GOP camps with a bold campaign message—a final argument for the final stretch.
“Yet Powell’s endorsement has the power to live for a few more news cycles in part because it was coupled with an indictment of McCain’s campaign—on Bill Ayers, on the economy, and running through a running-mate selection ‘that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Sen. McCain made.’
“In its sweep, Powell’s lasting impact may be that he rendered McCain’s last best weapons ineffective.”
—Rick Klein & Hope Ditto
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1
“Obama is being less than candid about . . .”
Katherine [#57], I’m curious: Would you say Bush and Rove were ever candid about the smear campaign they conducted against McCain before the 2000 South Carolina primary?
#59, can you show that it was the Bush campaign rather than some group not connected to it? Can you produce at least strong evidence, if not proof? On the other side, there were some ugly push-poll calls in Michigan, as I recall, which the McCain campaign denied making. I am getting email now asking me to contribute to an independent ad buy which I’m not giving to because I don’t think their particular ad is going to be much use.
Besides, this is the kind of thing which is getting to me. Whatever does this have to do with the 2008 campaign? Hate them as much as you want to. Bush isn’t running, and Rove isn’t working for anybody’s campaign.
Further, #59, this is not analogous. What conservatives like me question is Obama’s basic philosophy of government. His connections in Chicago lead me to believe that his off-the-cuff income redistribution answer to a questioner on a rope line represents his actual belief about taxation and its purpose.
“To your questions, I would answer that Obama is being less than candid about his associations with the New Party, with Ayers, and with ACORN.”
Less than candid? He is outright lying. Acorn called him on his attempt to distance himself from that group, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper found out that Obama’s association with Ayers was much more than “just a man in my neighborhood”.
It is helpful to focus on Senator OBama’s commitment to unrestrained abortion-on-demand, now starting to circulate on the web. The video of his address to Planned Parenthood is striking for the passion of his commitment as contasted with the coolness of his demeanor in the debates. “Who is Barack Obama?” is a question that is in part anwered by this commitment.
Why is is so difficult to ignore the modern Episcopal Church’s history with abortion-on-demand and the possibility that this may be the spiritual home more appropriate to the Senator’s vision than he found in South Side Chicago?
The [url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/news/politics/f_for_baracks_school_fix_134391.htm]superintendent of Chicago schools[/url] during the years when Obama chaired the CAC says that there was a “total lack of accountability” of how the Annenberg funds were spent. [blockquote]Most frustrating, Vallas said, was that Annenberg under Obama and Ayers funded groups that fought his mission, under Mayor Richard Daley, to impose uniform standards and stricter accountability in low-performing schools.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]”Temperamentally, Obama is a centrist.”[/blockquote]
That just makes no sense. Sorry.
[blockquote]”Isn’t it possible it’s just that Powell prefers Obama?”[/blockquote]
Yes, it’s absolutely possible. It’s also fair to discuss his reasons for preferring Obama, which is just what we’re doing.
[blockquote]”Here, it is important to remember that Ayers has a very long and distinguished career in Chicago education.”[/blockquote]
It’s important to note that this man should be in PRISON; not teaching college.
[blockquote]”Obama’s campaign was launched on 9/19/1995 at a lakefront Ramada Inn, in front of about 200 supporters, some time before the “coffee†at Ayers’ home. There were a number of other such “coffees†at the homes of other Hyde Park residents.”[/blockquote]
I think what so many of us are trying to say, Matt, is that there is no way on earth we would step foot in the home of a man who bombed public buildings as well as at least one family’s home, injured people, and is happy he did it, too. Although that doesn’t bother you, that raises judgment and character questions to many of us.
General Colin Powell was formed in the 1928 BCP faith and as a soldier lived that faith both courageously and giftedly, He changed the pronunciation of his name in honor of another West Point graduate formed in that faith, Colin P Kelly, the first West Point graduate killed in WW II and whose son proudly carries on the family name as rector at Trinity on the Hill, Los Akamos and President of the Standing Committee of the DRG.
General Powell would have had my vote for either President or Vice President in 2000. I worked to elect the 1st black mayor of a northern city, Mayor Hatcher in Gary IN. I have run for office and served as Secretary in the 80’s of the Coleman County TX Democratic Party.
Gen. Powell refused the requests of thousands to place himself before the public for our highest elected office. To use the high honors and esteem now that his appointed, not elected, career from Cadet to Secretary of State to criticize any elected mayor or congressman, senator or state governor of any party is not worthy of his previous history. Gen. Powell never put one stroke in any political race, never dipped his toe into the water and now he wants to talk about Gov. Palens’s qualifications when politically she has already qualified to swim the political waters for Olympic silver? He has no political basis from which to pontificate as he had his challenge to campaign in ’99 and bring major change to our country.
Sadly, I now have no political respect left for the man.
#67 Matt, However, I hope that some people will think twice about attacking a man like Powell for his endorsement on an ad hominem [i]basis[/i].
Speaking of me?
I dismiss his remarks and those of anyone with high public acclaim, actor, general or cabinet member, that have never run for public office as being of the same value: they are those of John Doe’s. I do believe every US citizen would benefit our country by holding the same opinion.
Ok, how about:
Powell will have role in administration, Obama says
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press
Oct. 20, 2008, 8:30AMShare
WASHINGTON — Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said today.
“He will have a role as one of my advisers,” Barack Obama said on NBC’s “Today” in an interview aired today, 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. …
McCain, meanwhile, seemed dismissive of Powell’s endorsement, saying it wasn’t a surprise, that the two share mutual respect and are longtime friends. The Republican from Arizona pointed out on Sunday that he had support from four other former secretaries of state, all veterans of Republican administrations: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.
Matt, here’s a real difference. You say, “progressives see taxes as a buy-in on the government’s role in the economy.” Conservatives see taxes as a way to pay for government services. I didn’t weigh in on the other thread because I am, as I said, tired of it. I did read some of it. You think Obama didn’t mean it the way he said it. I do.
I didn’t see the last debate. It is my understanding that Obama flatly denied connections other than the most casual to Ayers and ACORN. Connections are far stronger than that, and denying them is simply dishonest. If he is proud of his background and the training it has given him, he shouldn’t be “distancing” himself from the whole lot. At the very least, Kurtz’s research demonstrates connections far stronger than “some guy in the neighborhood” whom he didn’t see more than for six board meetings. Unlike Mafia connections, if there were any, I’m not saying that there’s something illegal about hanging with Chicago radicals and using that network to rise politically. But he is who he is. His general election campaign depicts someone else, a “moderate.” You think that’s the real Obama. I don’t.
There’s an obvious connection between the IRD and the AAC. There’s also an obvious connection between Obama and the Chicago radical community.
Kurtz’s piece itself points out that the “card-carrying socialist” charge is a stretch. I agree.
Please. ACORN hires minimum-wage people and requires quotas of new registrations. So the people fabricate registrations to get their numbers and earn the money. Legitimate registration drives produce a few bogus registrations every time. You can’t sit with a computer and do Google searches on every applicant, and you’re required to turn them all in. But ACORN, repeatedly, over several election cycles, has produced many thousands of questionable registrations. It’s an undeniable pattern. Obama’s campaign paid them $800k to do more of the same this year.
And to top this off, Obama’s lawyers are asking the Justice Department to investigate — not vote fraud allegations about ACORN, but the McCain campaign for complaining about it! This goes with the thug meme they are developing, asking the Justice Dept. to prosecute campaign ads they don’t like, and having allies in Missouri law enforcement threaten media outlets running ads they don’t like, and trying to stop Kurtz, who is a respectable conservative think tank scholar, from answering questions on WGN in Chicago. His research and opinions are just as valid as liberal think tanks guys putting out their own stuff.
As to the Bush Derangement Syndrome comment from a T19 denizen of whom I thought better, this is the last time I respond to him on a political thread, even if he addresses me personally.
Matt, the salient point about the tax issue is that I do not accept your view of taxes and what they’re for. Obama stated a view that is consistent with yours, as you state it. People who pay more benefit from the government’s making the economy better. Obama’s view, and yours, is that taking extra money from my husband who works twelve-hour days is “spreading the wealth,” on the theory that it is the government which creates jobs and wealth. It doesn’t.
No, the $800k for whatever is not the biggest item for me. And the “separate department” idea is a dodge. Money is fungible. You wish to look at ACORN as a harmless, nay, good, social service organization which does politics on the side. What I have read about ACORN and its tactics on many fronts tells me that it is politics, through and through, and politics I don’t agree with.
We’re probably done here, but I do appreciate your having read some of the source materials. Many progressives won’t do that much, and I commend you.
“Hey all, I’m getting tired. It’s me…against everyone” —Matt Thompson [#67]
Matt: You’ve certainly done a good job of representing your views.
Katherine,
Governments create jobs. They do this by hiring and paying people for services. Any person who has ever worked for a defense contractor, used the internet, or gone to a public school has benefitted from “spreading the wealth.”
Capitalism is a form of spreading the wealth. What makes it possible is that there are thousands of implicit agreements in every economic exchange. Who guarantees these exchanges? Well, the law helps. And paying for an independent judiciary is a responsibility for the government. And it pays people. In this way the government not only creates jobs, there is a ripple effect.
The central difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism is planned. Capitalism decentralizes planning. This is its power, and why it works. Governments tend to be clumsy with things like planning markets. Fortunately that’s not the issue.
As far as taxes go, the evidence is that sometimes tax cuts are useful, sometimes they aren’t.
As far as Obama supporting “socialism” it doesn’t hold up. I do think Obama is, at heart, much more in tune with progressives. that’s probably true. What is untrue is that he surrounds himself with leftists. He surrpounds himself with two sorts of people:
1) people who will help him win office. (And this should be controversial?)
2) people who have mastery over a subject. (thus, Volcker, Rubin, Goolsbee, Ayers)
What is untrue is that he is an ideologue. He simply doesn’t see the world in Manichean terms. He is, as some conservatives have noted, someone who really believes that conservatives have some wisdom. And if you look at who is on his economic team, you’ll see the evidence. I recognize this is frustrating for those who see the world in that way. Time an again, he’d be offered a leftist suit of some making, he’d examine it, and find it wasn’t him. He didn’t reject any of it. He tried to see what worked.
Jefferson makes the claim that Palin has better executive experience. her resume is better (although, she did need to hire someone to help her as mayor), I guess, in some fashion.
However, its interesting that Obama, who was only a state senator, may be able to do what Gore and Kerry could not do (become president), and also defeat the Clinton Machine. And pretty much defeat the Republicans. Not only is that leadership, its wartime leadership. And he’s probably going to become the victor.
Jefferson continues to repeat the echo chamber of conservative websites. As someone who lived in Hyde Park, the fact is that by the time Obama was there Ayers was pretty much a respected member of the Chicago community. Were they close? I think that is the distinction. Of course, none of these charges will stick, and if they did, there would be legal consequences for Obama. Good for Matt for getting people to read the facts.
Katherine changes the subject about the use of money. That could be a legitimate issue. The project failed, and it is useful to examine why.
Of course, G. Gordon Liddy and John Singlaub are getting a pass as acquaintances of McCain (and Liddy was actually convicted!). It shoes Obama’s integrity he’s not going there. Yet.
Liddy WAS convicted, did his time, and is now a functional member of society (as was Charles Colson, who is now leading a very successful prison ministry among other things).
Ayers, on the other hand, was let off on a technicality, and quoted in an ad as saying “Guilty as sin, free as a bird, what a great country” while stomping on an American flag, and later, on 9/11 said he didn’t regret the bombings he carried out, but that “I wish I had bombed more”.
He may be a member of society, but is still an unrepentant terrorist who has not changed his views, and is passing those views on to his ‘students’.
Are Obama’s past ties to Ayers worse than GW Bush’s past history of cocaine use?
Ayers didn’t do any killing himself. I don’t think there was ever any support for violence against innocent people. I am willing, of course, to stand corrected.