About Colin Powell endorsing Senator Barack Obama
Well if you haven’t heard about this, I am sure you will. The commercials and the pundits will likely be buzzing all week on this news. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.
Now this is important on several levels. Powell is a Republican (as I’ve said in the past, Black Republicans do exist), respected on an international level as well as domestic, has great insight on foreign affairs, and is politically neutral (up til now). His opinion, and the weight he gives to Obama should not be underestimated. It should also be scrutinized as to why he picked Obama.
At the offset, Powell clearly states that he has followed this election since the candidates first mentioned they would run. That indicates to me that he was aware early on that this election would be the most important likely in decades. That the shape and ability of America will be shaped in the outcome.
And he clearly states that he is quite familiar with both men. He has spoken with both several times in almost 2 years.
Those are facts. And I interpret from that fact that neither man was able to convey a confidence for Powell. Further it is clear that he believes that the Republican Party is becoming too conservative and religious for his liking. In that I can say I agree with Powell, if I understand him correctly.
But it seems that Powell does not like the pick of Gov. Sarah Palin. It is not because she is incapable, nor that she is not qualified. It is the fact, in his opinion that she is not prepared or experienced enough at this time. That argument is one that many have made, and is the source of why Palin is so often compared to Senator Obama instead of Biden.
And the final critical point is the actions of Senator McCain with respect to the mortgage crisis and the credit crunch it has caused. McCain has made several moves on this issue and had several changes in policy as event have unfolded. This was a problem for Powell.
But I have a problem. It is the very lack of action, and the seeming disdain that Obama displayed in regard to the mortgage bailout and the credit crisis that bothers me. He did not do his job as a Senator when the Congress was debating and voting on the mortgage bailout. Were it up to Obama the bailout would have been passed with a clause that would take any repayments and provide them not to the public but to Democrat sponsored groups like ACORN. That is not where I would want my money to go, and the Government should not choose for my money to go there without my permission.
And Yes Obama has seemed very steady in his view of the crisis. In fact he seems more than unflappable, he is steadfast. Obama essentially refuses to change his mind on his tax plans, and the 832 billion dollars in new spending that he continues to promise, seemingly oblivious of the consequences of the trillion that has just been spent (to say nothing of the hundreds of billions just prior to that).
There is also a question of the judgment of Obama in picking a VP that opposes him so much on critical issues. That includes healthcare, Iraq, and taxes. This says nothing of the public denial Biden made about the preparedness of Obama to assume the Presidency. That speaks to me of an Administration that would be plagued with internal stryfe and ineffectiveness.
And as to the campaign of Senator McCain, I agree that the focus has drifted a bit from the core issues facing America at this time. But drifting is not the same as abandoning.
Yet I think addressing issues like Bill Ayers is important. Not only because Obama has yet to clearly state the nature of his relationship with this terrorist, but because he refuses to discuss the matter at all. He reacts as if mentioning that the actions happened in the past is enough. It is not, since the terrorist has no remorse and has stated in the present his desire to have done more domestic bombings.
And let us not forget that it is the Democrats who are firmly fixated on the past with regards to Iraq, and many policies of President Bush, if not also the 2000 election. If they believe the past is important for the future how is the past of Ayers, and his relationship with Obama not important?
So yes I agree that if this were about Rev. Wright it would be too far. And yes there is a hint of the anger versus terrorists in the message. But Ayers is unapologetic about the terrorism and domestic bombing he was admittedly responsible for. I feel that is important when dealing with a future President.
And I must ask, when has a Republican called Obama a Muslim? I am not familiar with anyone stating that, except one preacher who was then chided and refuted by Senator McCain.
But I do recall that it was the Clinton campaign that promoted and spread thoughts of Obama as a Muslim and drug dealer during the Democratic primaries. I do recall that they had staff going so far as to spread emails and appear in interviews stating these thoughts. Republicans, as I recall never have, but Democrats often have. And McCain has nothing to do with that.
And I do agree that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim in America. They are as American as anyone else. They are as religious and pious as any other religious sect. They are as worthy of any position as any other religious American. A Muslim can be a President, as there is Muslims in Congress. There is no difference than a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Jewish, Asian, Mormon, or other type of person as President.
So again I have to question how McCain can be responsible for every Republican in the Party, just as I believe Obama cannot be responsible for the actions of all Democrats – like various racial comments of Biden, the wild spending and disinformation of alternative energy stock ownership of Nancy Pelosi, or the inaction and hazardous inattentiveness of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their respective banking committees.
So I respect the conclusion that Obama is transformational. I respect that his is an orator of exceptional ability. I respect that he has an image that conveys a thought of a new type of America. And the fact that he is Black is not a bad point either, being Black Puerto Rican myself. But is that enough?
Is it enough that he has ideas that he thinks are good. Is it enough that he wants to turn the nation from the hard right direction we are in now to a far left position he embraces (as opposed to a more centrist position that most agree the nation reflects as a whole)? Can we accept that he is potentially a President that would bankrupt the nation with his economic policies in his attempt to make everyone more equal? That he would rather face defeat and embolden attacks on U.S. soil in the future rather than struggle through a difficult and politically damaging success? That he would rather increase the cost of energy such that businesses would fail in order to enforce energy saving practices on the American public? That having a uniform and Government mandated healthcare is better than any other choice? That the Government is larger and more involved in the daily lives of every American and business than ever before?
Colin Powell agrees that Obama does not have enough experience. That he will need to be guided by others around him. But is not the choice of a person with enough experience to understand a good advice being given from purely political or bad advice the better choice? Is not a President who knows enough to ask a question not answered, or wise enough to ask a question not brought up, better?
The growth of Senator Obama over the past 20 months has been impressive, and I have no doubt that in 4 years he will be the choice for America. But today the inexperience and inability to work in a bi-partisan manner on even something as important as the mortgage bailout troubles me.
And as for those that would claim that Powell has supported Obama because both are Black, they have not thought the facts through. While I respect Powell, and his decision, I see his reasons. I do not agree with them, but at no point are they wrong or fabricated. He has expressed a well thought out and heartfelt reason why Obama should be president. To disagree with those reasons is no more about race than to oppose voting for Obama would be. In fact I think to simply disregard the arguments of Powell for Obama as simply race preference is to be racist in the most ignorant manner, in my opinion. I find that no different than someone deciding to not vote for Obama because he is Black, because a decision and choice as important as this can never be based on something as trivial as who has the best suntan.
So these are my thoughts about Powell’s choice. I respect his view, and the man. I respect anyone who has a well thought out view on why they should or should not vote for either Presidential choice. But I have to say that I disagree with his final view. But that is America, and it is a right that we each have.
Exercise your right to vote after you have exercised your mind and learned who the right choice is for you. Colin Powell has, I have, now it’s your turn.
Labels: Colin Powell, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Secretary of State, Senator Barack Obama
4 Comments:
As found at www.presidentialraceblog.com, where I am also author.
Norris Hall October 21, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Is it about race?
Only one person knows for sure…and that’s Powell
Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party.
Any merit in his accusation???
Listen to Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Click to watch Senator Michelle Bachmann’s interview on Hardball
So…what do you think??.Is Colin Powell was just being overly sensitive, or does he have a point???
Norris,
I listened to the video clip. And I take from that 2 things. First that Chris Matthews was trying to deflect the conversation to a wider accusation than was being presented, and that Senator Obama has not made his relationship with Bill Ayers clear. And I should add a third thing. Rev. Wright is not an issue.
Rev. Wright is not a politician. I have clearly stated that he is a religious figure, and not elected. There has been no connection found that shows influence on a single decision Senator Obama has made in his political career, and many have searched for one. While Rev. Wright may be extreme in some views, he is not entirely wrong in the subjects he discusses – it is his delivery some are challenged by. That is not political fair game.
Bill Ayers is fair game. He is by definition a terrosist. He is unapologetic, and willfully interested in supporting a dramatic change in American politics that few agree with. He supports violence in achieving this limited view, that he has described as socialist. He is self-described as an anarchist. And it has been revealed that he has held these views while he served with Senator Obama on a Board, and when he launched Obama’s political career in his house. That is fair game.
Matthews wants to excite the far-left, and to offend those in the middle of the nation. He incorrectly states the political leanings of the nation. In fact some 60% of the nation has been projected as being center-right politically – no matter the official Party affiliation. He tries to extend the comments to make any non-Republican look like they are being called un-American, which is absurd.
He tries to make the comments seem like they are directed towards a geographical place, and thus type of American. That is foolish as well. But to dismiss the thought that some would radically change America into a more socialist nation is just as foolhardy.
There can be no dispute that Bill Ayers is anti-American. He is an unrepentant self-admitted terrorist. Rev. Wright is not the same. He may have strong views that are challenging, but I have yet to hear anything that is un-American. Again presentation is not the same as belief. When taken in context Ayers and Rev. Wright are nothing alike.
Tony Rezco is also not fair game. In over a decade of investigation by reporters and the legal system no wrong-doing by Senator Obama was found. I doubt that any person placed under the scrutiny of the media and politics will not have former friends and associates that have made questionable actions.
The fact that I grew up in the Bronx and have lost half the people I went to school with to drugs and/or crime does not change what I say or who I am. It does mean that I am aware of America not always being a Rockwell painting. And yes I would have a drink or dinner with those that survive today, they are friends. But that does not mean I would support what they would do, nor allow them to influence my decisions. Yet if I were questions about them, and seeking elected office, I would expect and answer my association to them.
Few in America can say that everyone they have know followed the perfect path. Fewer are aware of every action a former associate might have or is taking. That is not their fault. Rezco is out of bounds.
So in balance yes this discussion is on balance unfair. By both sides. One for including non-relevant associations, the other for sensationalism. Thus I am left to conclude that some Republicans are at fault, and the media is extremely at fault. The media has failed in their duty to inform the public without political preference. Their bias harms the nation. And part of that bias has fueled a portion of the Republican Party that feeds on irrelevance over substance. But that is not enough of a reason to pick a President, nor is it a reason to choose who not to vote for.
All that does is cause me to seek out for information, hopefully with less bias and rhetoric.
Have I answered your question?
henry October 24, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
With all due respect, I have to disagree with your analysis of candidate Obama. Having said that, I also have to say that this is one of the most thoughtful and candid appraisals of events I have yet to find. I am especially impressed by your repudiation of the race question. I respect the conservative pov. I feel they have lost their way. I would welcome them back into the discussion. But what I am most saddened by are the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Here in Milwaukee, we have two local Rush Jrs. They are media clowns and they understand that rantings mean ratings mean revenue.
I wish that your voice was the one we all heard instead. Keep up the good work.
Henry,
Thank you for the compliment. I’m glad that you disagree with my positions. I firmly believe that if any commentator covering the election, or politics in general, cannot evoke respectful disagreement they are failing to give an honest opinion. Because it is in the reaction of those giving an opposing view that independents often are able to see their questions answered.
By that I mean it is the fact that a true independent will look at both sides of the issue, see what each side believes, and their weaknesses as well, and determine the overall best answer for themselves. Merely speaking to copy someone else, or to rant for ratings is a disservice to the public at large, as I see it. I am glad I have avoided that.
I would love to have a larger audience, and one of these days you just might hear/see me in a different format. But for now I am more than pleased with the tens of thousands of readers that visit me each month from around the world. Of course I’m not opposed to adding to that group, so do tell your friends.
Henry, one thing I am interested in hearing is what it is you disagree with in my analysis of Senator Obama. Is there one point I got wrong, or the whole thing? Do you see Senator Biden working positively with Senator Obama, and willingly giving up views he claimed during the Democratic debates? Do you think the economic policies will work to help America, which many disagree on? Do you think that his attitudes on foreign policy benefit or weaken America?
These and other questions are important for us to answer. They are the reasons that will determine the direction of America after the election. They should be the only factors for basing a decision on whom to vote for. So I do believe your answers can be helpful. Both for me in making my view clear and honest, and for those that oppose or are undecided. Because if there is a question I can’t answer or respond to, it is a reason to have doubt. And those I can answer give a balance to base a decision on.
That is the purpose of my years of writing on this subject. I hope that you will follow my writing on politics and other subjects after the election, because I’m not disappearing. But this focus is no less critical for all of us.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home