The obligatory “Colin Powell probably going to endorse Obama on Sunday” post
posted at 7:00 pm on October 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No word officially, but would an Obama shill like Andrea Mitchell be touting it this heavily if she thought a Maverick moment was in the works?
Hotline’s predictably jacked, too:
If Powell, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does endorse, he blesses Obama as a capable leader who is able to manage critical national security and foreign policy matters. Though his push for the Iraq war somewhat tarnished his stellar reputation as a respected military man, Powell, who served three Republican presidents, remains popular. His support for Obama could sway moderates, males, in particular, and working class whites who might be buying into the GOP’s line that Obama isn’t patriotic or American enough.
After four months of non-suspense about his intentions, it’s a relief to know we won’t have to suffer the tedium of this idiocy much longer. Needless to say, with The One on the brink of victory and the ascendant left ready to absolve him of his Bush credentials, Powell has zero incentive to throw in with McCain now. Although it would have been sporting of him not to choose such a high profile venue to break the news so that it’s not airing on a cable loop all day Sunday, which it will be. Exit quotation: “It’s going to make a lot of news, and certainly be personally embarrassing for McCain. It comes at a time when we need momentum, and it would create momentum against us.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
You need to learn the difference between treachery and treason.
What a fool.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM
At least Huck gave cause. So far the only ‘crime’ Powell has committed was going on air Sunday.
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Comparatively, yes. Losing a half-million men compared to losing nearly 20 million, comparative camping trip. I’m not demeaning the US or Allied effort, but the vast majority of the European war was fought East of the Oder River, not West.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM
What an ass.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM
LOL.
Blame me for your problems with English.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM
This doesn’t matter much either then…..
FiveWays on October 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I truly think that we should wait for the announcement before heaping a mountain of trash on Colin Powell.
Speakup on October 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM
From our re-education camp, the overseers have a picture of Colin Powell, but they have not put it up on “The Wall” yet………. more to follow.
Seven Percent Solution on October 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Oh and….weren’t we busy in the Pacific at the time also……..?
FiveWays on October 17, 2008 at 11:13 PM
No, I blame you for not understanding that treason is an act of treachery. Look it up, Ass.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I’m not familiar with any wars over pastries.
Not true as the U.S and Britain did the destroying of the factories that the German troops depended on, that was the heavy lifting. Without that the Russians would have been just cannon fodder against the Germans, they were mostly that anyway during most of WWII. The American military was far superior to the Russian military. The Russians were lousy.
I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.
- George S. Patton
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:14 PM
You don’t understand. The Russians think they did all the heavy lifting in WWII. They don’t consider the war in the Pacific to have been much of anything.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Digging yourself deeper. Treachery being part of treason would mean that all traitors are treacherous. It WOULD NOT mean that all treacherous people are traitors.
This is pretty simple stuff, really.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Don’t get your knickers in a twist. I’m not going there either, the reason I distinguish the European Theater from the Pacific. The Russian did the vast majority of the fighting and dying in the ETO. All I’m saying.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Here you go, Ass.
http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/treachery
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Thanks for putting that up there.
I get a bit weary of the Russians won WWII stuff. They were begging us to open up a second front so they wouldn’t get swamped. We open up the front, beat the living piss out of Germany’s industry, beat Japan, and Russia gets the cred.
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM
That’s because the Russians were so inferior to the Americans and British and Germans. If not for us the all out sons-of-#itches, barbarians, and chronic drunks with no regard for human life, otherwise known as the Russians, would have lost all their troops.
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Er … alrighty. You keep using “treachery” as a synonym for “treason”. No one else will understand you, but you’ll know what you mean.
I have to assume that you are not a native English speaker.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2008 at 11:24 PM
You should ask Field Marshall Von Paulus if he agrees that the Russians had only good infantry. His Sixth Army suffered 850,000 casualties at the hands of those poor, backwards Russkies, and he went into captivity with the remaining 90,000 of his soldiers at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad.
GS Patton was a great US General, but he also completely underestimated the Red Army.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:28 PM
You do make me laugh.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Yes, that has been Russian and Communist propaganda since when I was a kid. It has been debunked over and over again.
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Pewwwwwwwwwwwwy
When Titans Clashed (East Front)….ISBN 0-7006-0899-0
Probably the most boring read but should straighten out anyone who has questions about the punishment Russia took and gave. Decide for yourself if it was a cannon fodder army or a brillant strategy.
Back on topic….Powell. I just don’t care who he endorses and don’t believe many outside the beltway or MSM will either.
Limerick on October 17, 2008 at 11:32 PM
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:36 PM
No offense but I’ll go with Patton and not you. I hope you will understand.
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Excellent book. A World at Arms by Gerhard Weinberg is a thorough overview of WWII, and Retribution by Max Hastings is a terrific account of Japanese foolishness in the Pacific.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM
The German to Russian kill ratio is reported anywhere from 2-1 to 10-1. The Russians simply poured as many peasants into the fray as the Germans supplies were halted by one of the worst winters in decades.
FiveWays on October 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM
No offense taken. I’ve studied WWII for most of my life, and early on thought that the Western Allies won the war, and the Sov’s, well, they just died a lot. Limerick points to a very good book, one among many, that changed my point of view a long time ago.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I dunno. Losing 20,000,000 men and being completely vulnerable to American attack if we had been smart enough to do it seems a whole lot more like cannon fodder than “brilliant strategy”. But maybe that’s just me.
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:46 PM
That’s quite the range in ratios, FW. The Russkies had very little in the way of solid strategy and tactics early on in Operation Barbarossa, but by Stalingrad they had begun to lay down excellent tenets in both areas. True, the Wehrmacht was almost always the most efficient killing machine in the ETO, but that doesn’t mean the Russians were nothing but cannon fodder. And yes, the Russian winter contributed mightily to German losses, but it did not take the Russians through Poland and into Germany.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I give no position, just a link to a good reference book. You are an ex-doggie, MB. Bombast is a universal characteristic.
Limerick on October 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I like your way of thinking. My soul tells me that when I invade the other Georgia I should probably put you in charge of some small city there or something.
PootyPoot on October 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I’m an ex what? Gun Bunny, Cannon Cocker, heard those before, but don’t recall any doggies.
MB4 on October 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM
LOL…ok, this thread-head is off to beer land.
Peace on Earth. Nuke everything else.
Limerick on October 17, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I’m jealous of your nickname.
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 11:58 PM
A black man endorsing a
half-blackblackPacific Asian American(according to Biden) half-whitecandidate.How novel.
Who cares?
madmonkphotog on October 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Years ago when I was in my early 20’s. I was the one that would cater to Casper. When he would visit the Nevada Test Site. He was a very nice man. I knew who he was. I met Colin Powell once also. I didn’t realize who he was. Years later I was watching the news. I was acting like a groupie. I admire Powell, but I hope he don’t endorse Obama. That would be a let down. Should be apparent to Powell that Obama is a Marxist. Had no idea that Condi endorsed Obama. Unless I read it wrong. She has been getting under my skin any way. Made me mad that she was butting in and making Israel do a peace treaty. And also, she should have checked her intelligence to make sure there were WMD’S in Iraq. But, then something had to be done over there anyway. I think someone set Bush up about there being WMD’S there. More then likely there were. But the Liberal’s when Clinton still was in office said same thing. But they didn’t say it. Go figure
sheebe on October 18, 2008 at 12:17 AM
I don’t think she has. She sent congrats to him when he won the nomination, but did not endorse him.
I *think* Condi is more of a real conservative than Powell ever was, at least on international relations (defense), so I certainly hope she doesn’t endorse Obama. But, as with Powell, I don’t think an endorsement from a Bush appointee brings anything to either candidate.
Y-not on October 18, 2008 at 12:21 AM
As I look at Obama’s enduring problems with white male voters, temporarily lifted by the financial crisis but possibly resurrected through the world’s most famous handyman, I almost wonder whether we shouldn’t prefer for Colin Powell to betray his team and endorse his “brother.” I’m not sure at all that the image of the big city papers, the East Coast intelligentsia, the professional race-baiters, and a near-unanimous black voting bloc ganging up on John the Hero, Sarah the Hockey Mom, and Joe the Plumber will be helpful to Government the Senator at just this moment.
And if the Allied air forces hadn’t been bombing Germany 24/7, the Wehrmacht would have been able to annihilate the Russians in even greater, possibly sufficient numbers. It wasn’t the destruction of German factories or the deaths of German citizens that impacted their war effort the most, especially in the East – it was the diversion of aircraft and, possibly even more important, the German 88mm anti-aircraft guns that were also their most effective and feared anti-tank weapons.
That’s what I read somewhere anyway.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 12:30 AM
No, Condi didn’t endorse Obama. As I recall, she refrained from making any endorsement.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
That’s right. It’s been the Bush administration’s policy not to comment on the race, as she answered the question about Obama in a nondescript, but complementary and polite way, much like the President himself might (as he did when Pelosi won the gavel).
Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2008 at 12:39 AM
i think if powell does endorse obama, there will be a backlash. The guy who one of main proponents for the war at the UN in Iraq endorses the guy that was against always. Powell has always said it was the right thing to do, and Obama has always said it was wrong. Does not look good for the one
ConservativePartyNow on October 18, 2008 at 12:50 AM
If I recall correctly, Condi was asked if she would feel safe under a President Obama to which she replied, “Oh, the United States will be fine.” I think she should have refrained from saying anything, but she did not “endorse” him. There was a bit of a ruckus here, though, because Allah had written the headline as Condi: America will be fine under President Obama and people took it to mean that she had endorsed him.
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Typical incendiary Allah… stuff.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Indded, but it was no suspense for me. I called this months ago. This man sold his soul in 2004, for lots of money. May he live with himself. I have no clue how he could have faked it until now. He used the systems, all of them. He is no pride to anyone.
Entelechy on October 18, 2008 at 12:56 AM
And if the Allied air forces hadn’t been bombing Germany 24/7, the Wehrmacht would have been able to annihilate the
Well written – but you have overly simplified a highly complex conflict in way that just doesn’t quite square with history.
As far as Powell goes, it is obvious he elicits varying degrees of both sympathy and antipathy, so we will have to simply disagree.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Well, shoot, it was just a blog post, not THE WAR OF THE WORLD.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Wasn’t that the Mars Invasion, 1939?
(Sorry, just funnin’ ya.)
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 1:31 AM
I think freevillage has reappeared, obviously you have not studied nor hold any regard to the role of airpower and air supremacy in conflict. The strategic bombing campaign waged against Germany forced their hand, in order to salvage manufacturing capability and bolster public moral the military had to commit most if not all air reources (both offensive and defensive) to defend against the strategic bombing waged by the Brits and the US. As such the Germans found themselves without adequate tactical air assets in the eastern theatre, this allowed Soviet ground forces far more freedom and comfort in their offensive operations. Agreed,it was a very complex situation but the lack of German airpower on the eastern front was paramount in allowing the Soviets far more flexability as they pushed towards Germany.
As far as Powel goes, I spoke my piece much earlier in the thread, he and we are best served if he keeps his opinion to himself.
dmann on October 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Only in the most broadest of terms. Eisenhower carried more weight in one landing than Powell has his entire career.
csdeven on October 18, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Who cares what Colon thinks? Real men know who he isn’t, and white punks on dope couldn’t be persuaded by someone they don’t know about even if they did know about the sphincter who doesn’t matter.
winemkr on October 18, 2008 at 1:52 AM
csdeven on October 18, 2008 at 1:44 AM
I frankly do not see how Powell can even be mentioned in the same breath as Eisenhower – though I guess in the broadest of terms everyone who serves honorably and to the best of his or her abilities is a hero.
I agree with your second sentence wholeheartedly. It’s my gut feeling that there were countless officers several levels below Eisenhower about whom you could make that statement. What’s amazing, when you read about Eisenhower, is that he even survived the war with his mental and physical health intact, much less go on to serve as President.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 1:58 AM
I take it you’re not familiar with THE WAR OF THE WORLD? The author directly refers to the HG Wells novel – referring to its action as a pre-figuration of industrialized warfare – the populace fleeing in droves from destroyed cities under attack from implacable otherwordly killing machines.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 2:02 AM
I was referring to the radio play by Orson Welles, wherein New Jersey is overrun by poor fools, who, living on the pre-CNN, pre-internet Earth, had to rely on radio and the written word for news and information, and did not have the otherworldly MSM to implacably fill their lives with useless chatter and ‘info-mation.’
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Anybody who followed Scooter Libby’s trial closely knows that this dude has absolutely no integrity. And anybody who followed the Gulf War closely knows that this dude has no creds. Affirmative action, doncha know?
grits on October 18, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Yet the Germans managed to increase markedly their production of fighters, right up to the actual invasion of the homeland. The tac air problem wasn’t due so much to the industrial or morale perturbations, it was due to the lack of trained pilots and fuel. The two biggest contributions of the RAF and Eighth Air Force were the attrition of experienced pilots and the disruption of oil supplies. Strategic Bombing campaigns have yet to fulfill the dreams of either Billy Mitchell or Douhet. Nuclear Strat Bombing is a whole other fish, though.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Well, yes, and I am using broad terms, more in the sense of type rather than degree. I do so in response to the overheated attacks calling Powell a ‘traitor.’
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:27 AM
One Affirmative Action pick chooses another.
It’s just the nature of the selection process….
TexasJew on October 18, 2008 at 2:36 AM
You are the only one who said ‘traitor’, time and again. One commenter called him ‘treachorous’ which you mistakenly twisted into ‘treason’. I explained the difference to you, but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Keep pushing the lie, though. You seem pretty good at it.
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 2:38 AM
He is as much a hero as Eisenhower
trailboss on October 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM
What an historically ignorant statement.
TexasJew on October 18, 2008 at 2:39 AM
well, trailboss, I think you’re right that SOME of the attacks on Powell have been overheated, not to mention premature. No need to convict and execute him for a crime that he hasn’t even committed yet. As far as we know, the rumors about his endorsing Obama were cooked up by Obamanauts specifically for the purpose of igniting a rightwing racially tinged pre-emptive strike that would a) more highly publicize the endorsement or, even more insidiously, b) motivate him to get off the fence and strike back. Don’t think either is likely, but it does make more sense to give him a chance.
I do think he tried to be a team player, and I respect his service. I’m well aware that he severe critics, but so does every man in high position in public life. I’ve also made it clear that I think an endorsement of Senator Government at this time would be an embarrassment for Powell, and quite possibly a net electoral negative for Sen. Government himself.
Anyway, he helped get Bush elected (defeat Al Gore) and he helped destroy Saddam Hussein, twice, so he can’t be all bad – even if he didn’t stick his neck out a second time during the WMD debacle (and probably none of us will ever know what really motivated all of the players through Plame and after). If he endorses the devil, he’ll have to be condemned, but I for one don’t want to have to eat too many of my own words if he surprises us by doing the “right thing.”
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Not too bad a track record, with the possible exception of the WMD dog and pony show.
Pretty well petered out thread. Thanks for the excellent thoughts.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:50 AM
There’s an ignorant statement, historical or otherwise, TJ.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:51 AM
Appeal to an actual authority, like the Webster dictionary, doesn’t work for you, does it. I’ll forever be unable to grasp something that you explain without actual, factual support.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 2:54 AM
my pleasure all – later!
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM
Many commenting here don’t care if he endorses BHO, or not. People have had real problems with Powell for a long time, now. My serious questioning of his competence started in Gulf I and only grew from there, as I saw him make worse and worse decisions at every juncture.
By the end of his first year as SecState, I had no respect for his thinking, whatsoever, though I thought he was, at least, a team player. But the whole Plame affair (and the way it was revealed after everything was finally over that Powell could have stopped it from the beginning, and SHOULD have) really, really, really bothered a lot of people. For me, Powell lost the last scraps of respect I had had for him. I mean, to think of everything we couldn’t do because so much was wrapped up in that amazingly stupid and asinine case. The repercussions from that idiotic diversion were immense and costly, in all areas – not to mention having destroyed Scooter Libby for no good reason. If only Gitmo detainees were given 1/100000th the Scooter Libby treatment … but then it would be a crime against humanity …
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 2:59 AM
:sigh:
Look, can someone be treacherous but not treasonous?
If you answer, “Yes,” then you have proven to yourself that one cannot simply substitute the word ‘treason’ for ‘treachery’ any time they want.
If you answer, “No,” then you don’t know English.
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Please, native american speecher, explain to me how this is not a charge of treason, but only of personal treachery?
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 3:02 AM
I stand corrected on the overall mentions of ‘treasonous’. I have no problem with your reply to that post in that way.
But you are still wrong in how you answered someone else’s ‘treacherous’ post with the switch to ‘treasonous’. You then spent a bunch of wasted posts trying to convince me that the two words were synonymous, and even worse, intechangeable – which they are most definitely NOT.
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 3:08 AM
Sigh is right. We have been fighting and insulting each other over a meaning you didn’t see in the thread, and the one meaning in the thread I took personal exception to.
Both personally treacherous acts and real acts of treason have been bandied about in the thread; You saw only the first, and I only cared about the second.
My apologies for name calling. I would appreciate a simple acknowledgment if you understand what I have written.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 3:10 AM
The Russians destroyed Germany’s military front end. The allies made absolutely vital contributions together to overcome the axis. The US was vital even before it entered the war properly. The German’s know where the fighting was worse… more brutal… were they lost the most men. Also where most civilian deaths were accrued.. excepting certain claims by the Chinese.
lexhamfox on October 18, 2008 at 3:24 AM
Ya. Gut mensch.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 3:26 AM
No problems. But there was a big difference in what the two were saying. The one guy, dave, was saying that the act of endorsing a socialist was treasonous. I didn’t read his other comments, but from the one above, he was only addressing the current act.
The other commenter, Hilts, was saying that he found Powell to be treacherous after learning his role in the Plame affair. He was referring to Powell’s personality … at least, by that one comment – basically, that Powell couldn’t be trusted, with a splash of nastiness, I would guess.
Anyway, no hard feelings on this side. I really didn’t need to editorialize on my first response to you. But, all in all, for an internet scrap I think it was still pretty civilized.
progressoverpeace on October 18, 2008 at 3:26 AM
Copy. Thanks. I understand much better now.
trailboss on October 18, 2008 at 3:27 AM
If Powell endorses BO, JMac will lock load and fire with Jeremiah Wright…That’s all he can stands…he can’t stands no more Popeye
gracie on October 18, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Powell is a great man but endorsing The One only makes clear that he still has the mentality of the tribe. As an African Republican I vote on ISSUES and Ideology, not on RACE.
Shame on all who crap on Martin Luther Kings’ Dream of Content of character not Color of skin.
Dritanian on October 18, 2008 at 4:49 AM
I’m not sure this has as much impact as everyone is predicting. If blacks weren’t already monolithically voting for Obama in droves yeah maybe then a Powell endorsement would seem like a bigger deal but it’s not the case.
Most blacks are voting for Obama. Colin Powell is black. I get it.
Colin Powell is a respected figure yes but he hasn’t been in the spotlight for awhile and I’m not sure how many people he sways with his possible endorsement.
And really if the Democrats can withstand their 2000 VP candidate Joe Lieberman backing our guy, we can certainly withstand having GWB’s Secretary of State backing theirs.
In fact, you could make an argument that it makes a McCain presidency look even less like another 4 years of Bush!
Actually I think it would be more harmful at this stage of the game if Joe the Plumber decided to endorse Obama!!
sheryl on October 18, 2008 at 6:18 AM
Sheryl
Excellent points. As I wrote previously anyone who would let Powell influence their vote was going to vote Obama anyway. Powell, like Obama, is pretty much a media creation.
Hilts on October 18, 2008 at 7:10 AM
For every dead American and British military personnel in Europe there wre at least 76 dead Soviet soldiers.
OK you all convinced me, Colin Powell is the third greatest American of all time right behind Washington and Lincoln.
Hilts on October 18, 2008 at 7:18 AM
Who gives a flying ____
lisalj on October 18, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Endorsements baffle me. I know they influence some people, perhaps more than I care to admit, but I know who I would like to elect (and actually, it’s neither of these candidates), and General Powell’s endorsement doesn’t affect my thinking. For those who are swayed by these things, how many aren’t in Obama’s camp already?
DrMagnolias on October 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Is Powell going to take Michelle my Belle to the Rev Wright special sermon on Sunday. Just asking, because he is apparently proud of the lack of vitriol from Obama. From conservative to communist, something is wrong with this picture.
tarpon on October 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM
-not on October 18, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Thank you for the answer. I wasn’t sure if she did or not. I am still not to sure what to think of Condi Rice. I do like her. But I was not to happy with her meddling with Israel. Israel seems to take a lot of crap from Syria, and other Countries. But this is how I feel. I am not Jewish. But then again, I don’t really understand Middle Eastern Politics. I know that they have been enemies from the beginning. I worry about our Country at this point.
sheebe on October 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I think that all this will do is tarnish an otherwise outstanding reputation. I mean how do you go from being a incredibly successful, non affirmative action, conservative, black american to endorsing Obama.
Obama is a weak, affirmative action socialist/marxist who plays race. IF Powell endorses him, he will be the loser for it and I think rightly so, will be seen as one who ultimately made a decision based on race.
America1st on October 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM
A once fine mind turned to mush, after all he is the Mess-iah, how could he not endorse him.
americaslaststand on October 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I believe Powell is/was in favor of Affirmative Action. I recall a comment about the “crumbs of compassion,” or something like that, that he made in 2000 at the RNC convention. In any case, I’ve never thought of him as all that conservative.
I disagree with his choice of candidates (understatement of the millenium), but for some people of color, electing the first Black president trumps nearly every other consideration. I disagree, but I understand the sentiment.
jazz_piano on October 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
As for Condi, I deeply respect her courage as a Black Republican. But her “moderately pro-choice” stance makes her someone I could never vote for.
jazz_piano on October 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
“I believe Powell is/was in favor of Affirmative Action. I recall a comment about the “crumbs of compassion,” or something like that, that he made in 2000 at the RNC convention. In any case, I’ve never thought of him as all that conservative.”
You may be right. I guess I based my assumption on his life. Service in Vietnam, rising to incredible heights based on his merit. Liberalism seems to be a creeping affliction. The older one gets the more susecptible they become to it’s insidious advance.
“but for some people of color, electing the first Black president trumps nearly every other consideration.”
But that’s not racism….. that is black pride (New media talking point) blacks voting for Obama because he is black equals pride whites voting against him for any reason = racism.
I say that IF Obama is elected, at the very least the the race hustlers should all be out of a job for good. I dont ever want to hear from Sharpton, Jackson or any other victimist again. Small consolation for socialism and destruction of the country I know.
* Why does EVERYONE in the lamestream media keep talking about race and racist people, potentially denying The One and by implication that it is racist conservatives that will be doing it.
It is not like conservatives would be swayed to socialism by a white guy. It is so ridiculous that none of them make the OBVIOUS POINT that if their theory is correct, it is RACIST LIBERALS that will deliver that defeat.
America1st on October 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Powell has since stated that he is “leaning” toward endorsing Obama because of all the personal attacks on Obama from the right. So does that mean that the personal attacks against McCain, and especially Palin, from the left, are not a problem with him?
What a totally insignificant loser!
GFW on October 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Jackson and Sharpton have been diminished by Obama’s rise, and they know it. I’m sure Powell sees Obama breaking a barrier that was unthinkable back when Powell was a child, when there was legal and institutional discrimination based on race. Whether Powell endorses Obama or not it is likely that he sees Obama’s success as positive for black Americans.
I think Obama is wrong on most things, but hopefully his election will make the issue of race less, not more, of a factor.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Does anyone have or can find Powells email address?? I want to send him THIS!!!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/
http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/10/13/obama-supporters-call-sarah-palin-a-cunt-where-is-the-media/
reshas1 on October 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I question the
timingrace.Texas Rainmaker on October 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Throw off the shackles man and get it over with
To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man – Shakespeare
Words for the wise. A man who choose to associate with those he despises becomes himself despised, not because his associates were despicable but because his choices explain his own character
An old joke about two old ladies eating dinner at a resort in the Catskills.
One lady complains “Oy the food is terrible here” to which the other replies “Yes, and they give you so much”
entagor on October 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Seriously? The race-baiters will never pretend their cause is complete, their goal won. They make a living on racism and will perpetuate until the end of time. What they will do is pimp off of Obama’s power to instill more race quotas, more handouts, more racism… because, they’ll say, it’s with the government’s aid (and Jackson/Sharpton’s help) that Obama was afforded the opportunity to ascend to the White House.
Heck, they’ll probably even try to change the name of that house, too.
Texas Rainmaker on October 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I hate to say it, but for African Americans, race always trumps all.
But whites are the racists, don’tcha know…
gridlock2 on October 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
We’ll likely start to see in about 2 weeks. So far Obama has distanced himself from race hustlers like Jackson.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 12:58 PM
There is a history that some black people have lived through that can shape that point of view. Various minority groups have supported leaders of their race simply because they felt it elevated the perception of their race on a day-to-day basis. The Irish, Italians and Jews have sometimes done this.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM
When the iraqui army was retreating and we could have totally destroyed them, powell talked BushI into being “humanitarian”. When they got back to iraq, saddam sent them up to the kurdish region to teach them a lesson. powell has never impresssed me as anything but a pentagon beurocrat.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
reshas1 on October 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Thank you for putting the links up. It is very interesting that NoBama was introduced on National TV on Oprah’s show. She announced his running on her show. I have never cared for Oprah. Won’t go into why. The Bail Out that was passed. Included money for Hollywood! Seems interesting that now, That slut Madonna, Bernhardt, Streisand and other kooks are doing their best to brain wash their fans and young people. This is why I won’t pay to see a movie with certain stars in it. I never had the desire to see Madonna perform. I met her when she stayed at my ex bosses home. What a pig. My ex boss and his wife wasn’t thrilled having her there either. She wanted me to bring fresh sheets and towells. When my ex bosses wife saw I was taking the stuff to her. She called her and told her to come and get the stuff herself. That I was not that type of employee. That was the day when she didn’t shave her armpits. Was a few years ago. So, some of our money went to the scum. Hollywood freaks. Don’t they have enough money? Then they are busy trashing our Country and the people that really care about what happens to it.
sheebe on October 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I certainly hope that someone else has told you already to stop perpetrating this lie.
baldilocks on October 18, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »