I find the General's endorsement rooted more in emotion than in the pressing issues, domestic and international, that face us as a free society.
As someone who once encouraged General Colin Powell to run for president (you can look it up on this site), I am disappointed by his endorsement of Barack Obama.
It is a gesture born of guilt over his now well-known regret about the Iraq war (even as we are now seeing great progress in that effort), and a gesture on behalf of a man who has the opportunity to break our last racial divide. That is understanable, but that doesn't make it right.
Let me just say this. Colin Powell, not Barack Obama, should have been our first black president. But Powell, a proud military man, did not have the stomach for a presidential campaign. Having passed over his chance, it is only natural that he sees in Obama an opportunity to overcome this last vestige of a nation long trapped by racial prejudices.
Frankly, it is the best reason to vote for Obama, but I am not sure it is reason enough.
Obama is a leftist — a seemingly decent, smart leftist — but a leftist nonetheless. What I have realized, focusing on his character and campaign over the past few months, is that he was smart enough to break ties with traditional civil rights power centers, knowing that aligning too closely with them would alienate many voters who have moved past the attitudes of the 1950s and 1960s.
But the real question is whether he has moved past the Left's commitment to socialism, to the use of the federal government or government in general as an arbiter of an increasingly greater share of our economic, political and social interactions. The answer, increasingly clear, is no.
Powell is no ideologue. He is a pragmatic man whose natural instincts move him to the center. Whether Obama is interested in governing from the center is impossible to determine — because Obama has intentionally revealed so little about his governing philosophy, which is precisely why his associations are disturbing, because if he is defined by whom he has associated with, he will clearly have some radical ideas about our government.
If he was a radical as a young man who has learned and moved to the center, why has he not repudiated the radical agenda of Bill Ayers, ACORN and other groups or causes with which he was associated? Why is he considered by reputable objective analysis the most liberal Senator? And why in the world does Colin Powell argue that it is unfair to question those associations given Obama's reticence about his philosophy?
Let us quote for a moment Bill Ayers, because the issue is not whether Obama supported terrorism or is sympathetic to the despicable acts Ayers and his group committed 40 years ago. The relevant issue is what Bill Ayers believes today, and whether Obama believes it. In his book, Teaching Toward Freedom, Ayers wrote the following:
Teaching toward freedom begins with embracing what Liz Kirby, a young Chicago high school teacher, posits as a radically new three R's: Respect, Relevance, and Revolution. Reading, writing, and arithmetic still matter, of course, but the new three R's take us deeper — each is undertaken based on respect for students, powered by relevance and connectedness to their lived lives, moving toward revolution, transformation, change for them and for their world.
These words were published only four years ago, 2004, and this goal to radicalize students on behalf of "social justice" must be understood for what it means. It is not about teaching each of us to be better, it is about overthrowing the system of free enterprise, empowering the state to enforce "social justice," and empowering leftist groups to define what social justice is. Ayers was explicit about these goals only a few years ago when he visited with radical President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
If Obama disassociates himself from this point of view, why has he not openly said so and why has he instead avoided commenting on the politics of radicalism endorsed by Ayers and others with whom Obama has broken bread and around which he has mobilized young voters and students.
Perhaps Obama has no philosophy. Perhaps he takes each issue on its merits and tries to ascertain how he will approach it. I find this hard to believe, but this is still a concern, for the natural tendency of the bureaucracy and the establishment Democrats is to move left — to empower government at the expense of a society based on individual freedom, not collective goals. You need look only at the experiences of Reagan and both Presidents Bush to see that even conservative men find the centrifugal force of centralizing power difficult to resist.
Can you imagine the most liberal Senator governing with the most liberal Congress. God help those of us who believe in the prerogatives of local government and the private sector.
I hope I am wrong and Powell right about Obama, should the Senator win. Otherwise, all the elite Republicans who have abandoned McCain and his citizen VP, the dynamic and authentic Sarah Palin, will be trying explain why they abandoned the campaign of a great American and a dynamic young governor to support a young man whose political skills overwhelmed their critical judgment about the substance of his agenda.
Well, there is one hopeful thought. Perhaps Powell, seeing the winds blowing in Obama's direction, is trying to position himself as an adviser who might give Obama a point of view he won't often hear from leading Democrats. That being true, we might thank the General for keeping doors to the Obama camp open. But for now, I find the General's endorsement rooted more in emotion than in the pressing issues, domestic and international, that face us as a free society.
I am always surprised when i read “great progress” referring to what’s going on in Iraq right now. Bush attacked Iraq on the grounds that it posed a terrible threat to democracy, US and the world (even thought the world didnt want him to go there) and not because of the dictator, but BECAUSE of the weapons of mass destruction intelligence reports had said it hosted, BECAUSE it supposedly hosted al Queda. As it turned out… ok, you know the story, no weapons, no AL Queda. Sadam killed, the invasion has created a mess in Iraq (and a good business for the war lords) and the US military got caught in a civil war, not a defending-democracy war. This disaster is now seeing some improvement and we call it “great progress”. Ha!
“Can you imagine the most liberal Senator governing with the most liberal Congress.”
It is funny how every single Democratic candidate for president, now matter how moderate, is instantly labeled by the Republicans as “the most liberal.” Russ Feingold and Barney Frank, among others, might have a bone to pick with you on this issue.
“Let me just say this. Colin Powell, not Barack Obama, should have been our first black president.”
I don’t necessarily agree with “should have,” but he _could_have_ if he hadn’t been sold down the river by the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and their imaginary WMDs. He cast his lot with them and is now living with the consequences.
“If he was a radical as a young man who has learned and moved to the center, why has he not repudiated the radical agenda of Bill Ayers, ACORN and other groups or causes with which he was associated?”
The Ayers and ACORN horses are dead. Why don’t you have some mercy on us and stop flogging them, already? But if you insist, then why hasn’t John McCain repudiated the radical, anti-democratic agenda of his good friend, convicted and unapologetic domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy?
kobalteria
Go back to the Daily Kos where you belong.
And George;
You are much to kind to Mr. Powell. All he has done is replace the word Honor with Color, (Duty, Country). Now I’m convinced that he never had any honor, loyalty, or conviction but only personal ambition.
A few comments if I might: The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal US Senator, and Joe Biden third most liberal. Your beef is with them, not with me.
As for Gordon Liddy, could you please point me to the act of terrorism with which he has been associated? Can you point me to his attempts to blow up the Pentagon and the homes of Judges, and so forth. I am not a huge fan of Liddy’s but I do know he served time for his Watergate offenses, which were trivial in comparison to what the Weathermen did. If I have overlooked something, I am sure you will let me know.
In any case, my concern about Obama is his refusal to repudiate Ayers politics. He has already repudiated his actions forty years ago and that is good enough for me. We can debate how close Obama is to Ayers. The General just gave him a pass, but interestingly it apparently doesn’t bother the General that Democrats tried to smear President Bush in a whole variety of ways. In embracing Obama he is embracing the party that has vilified our troops and President Bush. I guess being a good talker matters more than substance these days, but I figured Powell knew better.
But I still like and respect Powell. Like I said, I think he is, like many of us, caught up in the excitement of a talented African American becoming president. I can understand that to a point, but I still think we will be rolling the dice with a Obama presidency. Time and votes will tell.
Hey Ivan Ivanovich, thanks for the referral but I belong to a country that claims to be democratic… So, I will stay where I please, even if it doesnt feel comfortable (to you or even to me).
Anyhow, I am here to exchange ideas not insults, which are the weapons used by those who dont have something better to offer.
Maybe I should suggest that you go back to communist Russia… Oh, sorry, I am just judging you for your name.
I won’t speak for Ivan, but I welcome your thoughts. That is the point of this forum. I mean, as long as we keep it reasonable.
As for your Iraq gloss, well, listen that is the litany of the opponents of the war. And some of it is true as far as it goes, but is leaves a lot out, including the fact that even Colin Powell repeated that he believed the weapons existed and even leftist journalists have documented the conviction that Bush also believed they existed. Al Qaeda did exist in Iraq, though in limited numbers. It is simply ahistorical to blame people for not knowing what they could not know with certainty. Bush’s only offense was to read conflicting intelligence in a way that did not give a known terrorist the benefit of the doubt — in the wake of 9/11 no less. How outrageous. I hold Bush at fault for one major mistake — his slow reaction to the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. I think he should have changed strategies a year to 18 months earlier, but frankly the Pentagon also must accept blame as well.
I will go even further. I will concede that knowing all that we now know, Saddam might have been better left contained. But, frankly, that is hindsight that no one had. And had Saddam commited some outreagous act, you would have been the first to blame Bush for having not acted, just as Democrats blamed him (eight months into office) for not forseeing 9.11. Look, our enemies are ruthless and they have shown their colors in Iraq and in 9/11. Children, women, innocents do not exist in their minds. Our troops have died trying to fight a war by standards our enemies mock everytime they blow up a market or a school bus.
Bush might have been too optimistic about IRaq, but he also liberated two enslaved nations. That those who sought to enslave fought back violating all rules of war simply underscores what we are up against. Should President Obama and his country be attacked again, God forbid, he will face the same tough choices President Bush faced. I hope we will put country first next time, not politics.
kobalteria
ROTFLMAO, I should go back to communist Russia?
And what would you say about someone with the name Hussein?
My uncle showed me Mr. Powell’s endorsement of Obama yesterday and I do have to say that I agree with a lot of it. He is correct in saying that, at least for the campaign, Obama has shown much more composure and ability than McCain. McCain’s campaign has been a disaster of not knowing what buttons to press and when to press them. This Ayers stuff should have been brought about earlier during the campaign, along with Wright and other alliances/associations. More importantly, do not base your campaign on it. Lastly, if you plan to use it as a primary campaign tactic, then don’t go defend him at your rally. There are so many other ways to go after Obama, this had to be one of the dumbest.
However, several things made me a little upset. First, he mentioned that he has known Obama for 2 years and has been friends with McCain for 25 years. He specifically said the word friend. That confused me, but it might have to do with Obama specifically seeking him out.
Another thing Powell said that made things a little more clearer was that the Republican party was moving farther to the right. I wish! If anything, after this huge bailout bill, they are moving farther to the left. The fiscal responsibility I had been hoping for seems like a pipe dream now.
The last thing he said seemed scripted and bothered me quite a bit. He said that the United States has to lead the world in important issues, which is true enough, but mentioned in aid to those recovering from disasters… and I almost lost it. When typhoons hit Asia, were we not there with support? As a nation, are we not always the first ones to throw a helping hand? And when Katrina hit, were we expecting help? Of course not! Did we receive any? Not much, if any.
I wonder if Powell would have endorsed a white guy who was espousing the EXACT same views on the issues as Obama.
Anderson, very fair comments. McCain has run a stop and start campaign and his ability to articulate certain points of view leaves us aching for more clarification. For example, he has never pushed Obama on his philosophy of government, on his association not with Ayers per se, but with the philosophy that Ayers and ACORN and the far left represent. Why did he not reject public funding once Obama did. You don’t tie one hand behind your back when your opponent has refused. If I ever hear a Democrat complaina bout money in politics again I think I will need to do a spit take.
Yes, Obama is smoother — like Reagan, Kennedy and even Bush when he is on his game, Obama has some natural talents that are difficult to teach. But I also see a guy who is more rehearsed than natural, who has been preparing himself for this moment a long time. I don’t think it ever occurred to Kennedy to do anything other than his normal way of doing it. I think he was the ultimate natural — Obama taught himself to act like Kennedy and he had enough self discipline and ambition and presence to almost pull it off.
But, at the end of the day, do we vote for gestures and postures or for experience and ideology and philosophy of government. For me, that is the critical question. I like Obama. I truly think he is a good guy with great abilities. But why would I vote for him if he is going to use those abilities to drive our nation into the socialist camp? And until I hear him stand up and denounce Ayers and his philosophy, denounce the socialist approach to government and preach the great power of free enterprise and individual freedom (properly tempered), I can’t in good conscience vote for him.
However, let us give him this much — he stepped away from the victimology of the African American left for the most part. They have come with him to the dance because he provided the car, not because they necessarily relate to his approach. If he wins, it will be interesting to see how he handles the pressures that the Black Congressional caucus is going to try to place on him. But he will owe them very little.
As for McCain, I think he will be a better president than a campaigner. And he will govern from the middle, which was predetermined long ago when Fred Thompson was not chosen as the nominee. Thompson was the only true conservative and why the Republican establishment rallied around McCain so quickly I will never understand. I felt they were nominating Dole again. And we see what happened in 96. But, who knows, McCain is a great and interesting man on many levels. He reminds me of Truman in some ways.
I’ve never been clear on why POwell was regarded as a conservative in the first place. It’s quite true that conservatives have gone overboard to imagine him as one of their own–but rejecting McCain because he would appoint two new conservative supreme court justices draws into question either Powell’s conservativism–or the accolades he’s received from conservatives. –I suspect it’s the latter that is in the wrong.
As for McCain’s camp getting too out of hand–conservatives are upset because the media has generally ignored seriously investigating Obama, let alone asking him tough questions (as they are Joe the plumber). The result has been that many “popular” investigations (not always accurate of course) have done the media’s job–and not done is always with elegance. I haven’t heard Powell say much about this.
Obama seems to be an opportunist who reflects those nearest him. The latest edition of the NYReview of Books has pieces by a dozen academics denouncing Obama for making himself indistinguishable in large part from McCain. While this is an exaggeration, it’s true that he spends most of his time rhetorically making himself appear as the “average Joe.” –Unfortunately, as a man w/ few principles and a weakness for “fitting in,” his “buddies” if elected president will be Pelosi, Barney Frank and Reid. I haven’t heard Powell say much about that, either.
Nathan, good comments. I do want to clarify that I do think Powell believes Obama has special talents and a special presence. So, while I do think he was influenced by the racial issue, I might have overstated it in the column — which is directly to your point, which is tha Powell may well identify ideologically with Obama on as many issues as he does McCain.
I totally embrace your pov on the media. There is nothing wrong with questioning Obama’s associations and far less important issues have been raised about other candidates routinely and obsessively. And no one seems bothered at all that the media has set out repeatedly to do the dirty work for the Dems. There are a few guys like Brokaw and Schieffer who at least pretend to be objective, but not many.
I do think Obama has done a good job of trying to appear a centrist — but he has done it in a very clever, subtle way, trying to protect himself on the left. Look, I hope he truly is a centrist. If he wins, we will see.
Colin Powell has had favorability ratings from 66-85% and has been one of the most admired of American leaders.
Some history that I find interesting about Powell is that right before the Iraqi’s surrendered in Gulf I, the entire Iraqi army was spread out and gridlocked on the roads from Kuwait to Baghdad and the US and allies could have slaughtered the entire Iraqi army like shooting fish in a fishbowl. It was also evident that the war was won and Powell weighed in against doing this and shortly after that the fighting stopped.
Now, I suspect many on the blog might think that stupidity, but I think it speaks to the mans humanity. The war was won, the Irai military threat truly anhilated, and the true geopolitical goals of Bush Sr. were reached and the man did not want to preside over a massacre.
Powell could have won the presidency except that neither party would have nominated him because there is little room for a centrist to make it through the political system.
I think it is unsupported to assume that Colin Powell is supporting Obama because he is black. He may very well share some liberal viewpoint. I agree with Nathan on that. Don’t presume that every patriot and general is a conservative.
He did state that his main reason was that he felt Obama would provide better leadership on the economy, which one could certainly disagree with, but I take the general on his word.
I see McCain’s stumbling around with Joe the plumber as epitomizing the failure of the campaign. That Joe didn’t even earn what he said he did, would benefit more from Obama’s tax plan, wasn’t even a licensed plumber, and had a tax lien on his house just seems like so much pie in the face.
Obama comes off with more gravitas and I think Powell felt that. As a centrist, I started out supporting McCain, but will vote for Obama, though not a straight party ticket. I will vote for the GOP gubenatorial candidate McCrory, since Bev Perdue comes off as an air head, but will probably go Dem for congress, and see what they do with the ball. I’d like to see national health care and a more centrist court, and 100 mpg cars and then back to the GOP before the social welfarism gets too thick.
Obama, I think will surprise us by being more centrist than you expect. Historically he is a straight ahead liberal, but I think he is a thoughtful, decent person and not a leftist ideologue like you make him out to be. We will see.
The country will move two steps left, because that is what the country wishes at this time. It moved two steps right in 1980. The liberals survived Reagan and the conservatives will survive Obama. The US will survive it all, because we are a great country shaped by liberals and conservatives both. (Break for the Kumbaya chorus).
I started out supporting McCain and am going to vote Obama. Ayers is a canard. William Buffet and Colin Powell are the people that Obama will look to and I don’t give two figs about a dinner he had in some mans home ten years ago or that they both worked for the Annenburg or that he hasn’t lowered himself to have to answer what is purely guilt by association.
I am less Liberal than Obama but I am not a believer in the cultural wars and find them unpatriotic and mean spirited from either side.
There was a silent majority that brought forth Nixon after the excess of people like Ayers and Hoffman et al, but I see a silent majority now emerging that doesn’t buy that one side has all the answers for America and that everybody that does not support one side of the politic is a scoundrel and unpatriotic.
This isn’t directed to any one comment, but an observation in general.
I’m always amazed about the way people rationalize their decision to vote for a candidate.
If you like Obama, fine. Just say you’re going to vote for any Democrat, regardless of their abilities, because you don’t like Republicans or Conservatives. But spare us all the pseudo-analysis.
Why would any sane person — given the state of the world today — vote for the most inexperienced person ever to run for president, particularly when his own vice president has promised us that Obama’s election will provoke a certain international crisis, and that Obama’s “leadership” during this crisis will be objected to by the American people (the same way some people vehemently oppose Bush’s foreign policy)
From Joe Biden:
“Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis [that means, one that wouldn’t have occurred if McCain was president!], to test the mettle of this guy.”
I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate [mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities.]
“And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
As citizens and voters, we get the country we deserve. Anyone who has used the “incompetence” of the Bush Administration as a reason to support Obama, and said that Bush’s policies have made us less secure not more secure, can no longer hide behind that rhetoric to support Obama.
Vote for anyone you want, but spare us all the phony indignation and morality that supposedly drives your decision.
The Biden comment is a gift to McCain. How much of a gift time will tell.
Yonkel, sorry, I have to disgree with you about Ayers.
And for this reason mainly, the attempt to radicalize young students and the population has been incessant since the 1960s. obama has been a part of the Democratic and possibly even socialist infrastructure that has embraced this effort. You simply can’t reconcile the double standard — that Trent Lott can be driven from a leadership position in the Senate because he uttered a few banal niceties for Strom Thurmond at a tribute dinner, but Obama cannot be asked to explain and detail his relationship with a known radical terrorist who is still active and still writing books and still trying to influence education in our schools.
I keep waiting for Obama to say a few simple sentences: Let me be clear, I not only repudiate Bill Ayers and his acts 40 years ago, I also repudiate his radical agenda, his attempt to socialize students to radicalism and his cozy relationship with foreign dictators who wish our country ill will. As a young man, I made a mistake in accepting some of his worldview, but I would think my campaign and my time in the SEnate would demonstrate these were youthful associations that no longer shape my worldview.
Of course, there problem is that at every turn prior to his rise to stardom, Obama was in the company of these very strange, radical folks. Why do I have an obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt, all of this considered? And what’s scarier yet is that Pelosi, who I think may be further left that Obama, is going to be heading the Congress. You had better think hard, as a so-called moderate, about what you are about to do.
George:
That at some part of his career Obama associated with some far leftists is clear. That is an association. He probably also associated with thousands of other people who were not leftists. The same could be said of Martin Luther King or Reagan or Goldwaters associations on the far right.
What Trent Lott said went beyojnd kind words for an old friend but he said
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
The whole basis for Strom Thurmonds campaign in 1948 on the States Rights Party was preservation of Jim Crow, or to quote the man himself,
“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches”…..ST, 1948
Times change, and Thurmond moderated his views, and it wasn’t so much, that Lott shouldn’t have been able to appreciate the Senator, but the crazy statement that we would have been better off if he won i.e. that segration prevailed. This from a senator from the state with the most odious history of racism and the largest percentage black population which he was representing.
Now, I think Obama might have been more magnanimous and accepted the senators apologies and not called for his head, but Lott stepped down mostly because of pressure from Bush, and when he resumed as minority whip in later years Obama did accept that.
Personally, I feel that Obamas refusal to make Ayers or Wright, a big issue is both appropriate as well as politically adept. He rejected their views, and since he is not them, that is all he needs to do, any more than McCain would need to spend his time defending his relation with Keating or that anti-catholic minister that supported him.
It did no good for Kerry to battle the swift boaters, just reduces you to their level.
And Obama is being proven at least politically savvy. Since McCain has gone negative, he has lost ground, and I think it is one of the reasons Powell came out and made his stand, he said as much. Americans want to know about the issues and not about Bill Ayers.
do you honestly believe that Trent Lott, in front of a national audience, was advocating segregation.
Come on. He was advocating traditional values, small government, etc. These, too, were part of the movement of the time. The comments were thoughtless, they were not racist or malicious.
Obama’s success is rooted in three issues: biased media coverage (non stop), a bad economic situation that hurts the sitting president’s party, and a well run campaign by Obama. But, you know what, I will vote McCain because everytime I see him try to wave, I see the great love he had for his country and the great sacrifice he made for it while Bill Ayers was blowing up and killing our fellow citizens. And the sad part is that the Democrats actually think such people worthy of association but think George Bush, a man who kept our country safe for seven years, is to be vilified. That, folks, is a sad commentary on our nation.
George:
I would assume that Lott wasnt publicly advocating segregation, and yes, thoughtless, and I do agree that Obama should have been more forgiving, though it was Bush who truly forced him out. Lott was publicly indicating support of a campaign thats primary purpose was racist, whereas in Obama’s case it is pure guilt by association, and he never has espoused or indicated support for the violent left. Bill Ayers only relevance in this is the Republicans attempt to smear Obama, and if you read Powell’s speech that was one of his points.
McCain is a great hero, and most of the time I have spent on this blog defending him. He is honest and decent and I believe represents a positive trend in the Republican party.
George, we could spend years arguing the Bush and the MSM point. I don’t think that all of the MSM is without bias, although I think it is a case by case issue. Also, no mention is ever made of the constant vitriol that comes out of the AM radio that is universally attacking anything center or left of center.
Bush has presided over a much worsening situation of the US in the world. There are now at least four countries in Latin America that actively have joined the Castro camp- Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela. World support for the US is at a nadir, even McCain and Huckabee have addressed this failure of diplomacy, and in countries like Pakistan where approval of the US hovers at about 20% that translates into a reluctance to go after the terrorists and help our country.
North Korea has a nucleur bomb, Iran is on its way. Not all Bush’s doing, but I don’t see him having any great diplomatic successes. All US diplomatic efforts via Israel have come to naught. Bush has been the era of poor or no diplomacy and he abandoned the good diplomatic skills of his father for the “to hell with the rest of the world” approach of the neo conservatives. Also, Bush and Gonzales’ push towards using torture has hurt our standing in the world as a becaon for human rights.
To his credit, Bush has given strong support to African efforts combatting AIDS and malaria, and this is the one part of the world that the US remains fairly well liked. I also feel that the surge was a good move and has stabilized Iraq, yes Obama opposed it, but the earlier part of the war was bungled and in general I do not support regime change as a criteria for US military action.
Then there is the economy. Record defecit, lowest US savings rates in history. Not all Bushes fault, but he doesn’t address it. Obama has at least spoken to the problem of people bearing some responsibility for the “live on debt culture” that this generation has become accustomed to.
That our country has not had a major domestic terrorist incident for seven years is partly due to our great efforts at Homeland Security which has generally been a bipartisan effort and giving Bush credit for this is like giving Pelosi credit for it. The hard working folks doing our security deserve some credit and both parties have worked hard at this and will continue to do it.
Besides, there is a mathamatical illogic in assuming that if you have one major event like 9/11 and then you go a period of time without another, that represents a trend. In order to establish a trend, you need multiple events. Does the fact that there has never been a major terrorist attack in France, Finland and the Bahamas indicate some great skills of their intelligence communities.
I don’t know how the terrorists think, or their capabilities, but they remain alive and well in Pakistan and maybe they have decided it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than coming to the US.
I have to remind you that Bush went to our allies, went to the UN, and sought their support. Agree or not with the decision, he was under no compulsion to do either. We were in a state of war — and Iraq was saber rattling and aligning with other enemies. Commentary did a great piece on the inevitability of war with Iraq based on the emerging consensus within our own government, on both sides of the aisle, and on the behavior and attitude of Saddam. Nancy Pelosi. Please. This is typical of those who have inhaled the media’s dislike of Bush — he gets blamed for everything bad, but gets no credit for anything good — the fact is that our economy under Bush in a tough environment chugged along nicely until about six months ago. The housing failure was a Democratic failure and a Wall Street greed issue — and Bush and McCain fought to contain it, while Obama and his party did nothing. In any case, a lot of the economic turbulence is global. Economies don’t go perfectly on and on. Bush is unlucky, but I think did a much better job than most admit. Deficit, sure, a problem, but we were on track to grow out of it until the economy went south, even in the midst of war. Mccain and palin will attack the spending, Obama won’t — that is obvious.
In turning so sharply and maliciously on Bush, the party and the so called elite intellectuals on the right handed a gift to the Democratic left, which never turns on its own — witness the rallying around Clinton back when he was disgracing his office. I do agree with you about talk radio at times, but frankly it is not nearly as bad as folks portray. And when you are subjected to CNN, Katie, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, all bashing Palin nonstop, it is nice to have one voice or two out there balancing the bias.
BTW, Ayers was a totally legitimate story, whether it disqualified Obama or not is beside the point. The nature of his relationship and his views about Ayers philosophy would have been frontpage news for weeks had the issue been on the other side. You are too smart not to know that. This man is and remains an avowed enemy of our country and the Democratic party has allowed him to shape education policy and supplied him with millions of dollars. Wright was a hatemonger. It would have been news for weeks had the shoe been on the other foot. Investigations would have been launched to find out if Obama really didn’t hear the sermons, people would have been interviewed, etc. They spent months investigating Bush’s honorable natioanl guard service, for God’s sake, and Palin’s travel, which wasn’t even a violation of anything. And look what they did to Joe the plumber in a week. Yonkel, wake up my friend. The media is a wing of the Democratic left. But what can one expect from a party that is basically a European socialist party — witness the rise in reputation of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Clinton, Paul Krugman, etc.
The dems have come along way since JFK. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be dialogue, but with all respect Limbaugh is important, but he is not a government official — he is an entertainer who happens to love talking politics. The people attacking Bush and our troops have been the mainstream Democratic leadership. They hated Bush the minute the Supreme Court ended the charade in Florida in 2000 and while I agree Bush could have done some things better, he has actually conducted himself in a way that has been honorable and respectful of his opposition and the office he held. but more on that later. all the best, gs.
George:
I will give you a few points.
First, I think there is always an overattribution of both credit and blame for things that are often random or beyond anybodies control weather the economy or 9/11.
So presidents with good economies like Reagan and Clinton get praise where Carter and Bush II look bad. The reality is that, although there are good and bad economic policies, none of them will overide the normal cyclical economic cycles and most wont have effects until years afterward. So I don’t blame Bush for the economy, and I also think it an oversimplification to blame the Dems for the housing failure.
“The housing failure was a Democratic failure and a Wall Street greed issue — and Bush and McCain fought to contain it, while Obama and his party did nothing. In any case, a lot of the economic”
Personally, I think most of the fault lies with the people in our country who insist on living beyond their means, of which there appears to be a bipartisan effort.
The politicians pander to the general public and like to blame Wall Street, but Wall Street only serves up the exhorbitance and greed of Main Street, they don’t invent it. People living off of refinancing their houses in a bubble and equity loans and credit cards are a reflection of a moral decline in standards, and I was quite pleased that Obama spoke to this, if but briefly, in the last debate. That is a true conservatism and we need more good moral leadership and less pandering to a public that wants to blame everybody but themselves.
The fact that Standard and Poors and Moodys overated trillions in mortgage backed securities as Class A instead of junk bonds was not up to the Dems. I know the case about efforts to push the lenders towards mortgages to the poor, there is some culpability, I’ll give you that, but I think it is just one part of a much larger picture.
It is easy to blame the other party or the fat cats, but we as a society need to stop living on credit or our great grand children may join the third world and have to sneak into China to make a living as waiters at American restaurants. Our current situation with credit card debt is as dangerous as the housing. The idea that we can shop ourselves out of the problem is nuts, that is what got us there. If a stimulus is needed, build more windmills.
Back to Bush. I am a confirmed defecit hawk and would support a balanced budget ammendment. I can abide by a conservative belief in lower expenditures, I am a cheapskate myself, but I can’t believe in just lowering taxes and building up a defecit because it is more politically expedient to advocate lower taxes than reduced expenditures.
In this I can support McCain more than Bush. When economic times are good we should be putting in fodder for leaner times, that is what Clinton did. But during the better days of the last 8 years we ended up increasing the defecit, which now given an imminent recession, it will rise even further to record proportions. Do we really want to be up to our ears in debt to the Chineese and Saudis.
On Iraq, I think that Bush wanted the war early, pushed it, sold it with information that later proved false. In this, I wont claim that he deliberately lied, but I can’t put Pelosi and HRC up as equally culpable, because they bought the spin. I think Bush, Bolton et al were persuing a policy of using the military to effect regime change, and that is a break from most prior American policy, Democrat and Republican, and is bad policy.
We need a clear doctrine for using military force. My belief is that military force should be limited to direct threats to our country (e.g. Afghanistan), the iminent loss of many human lives if intervention isn’t done (Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda) or in defending a weaker power unfairly invaded (Kuwait).
One of the reasons I am supporting the Dems this time is that I have only heard that from them, Biden specifically addressed that.
“BTW, Ayers was a totally legitimate story, whether it disqualified Obama or not is beside the point.”
To me, it is the point. The story was reported, it just doesn’t mean anything to me, any more than the Lefts conspiracy theories about Diebold.
“The nature of his relationship and his views about Ayers philosophy would have been frontpage news for weeks had the issue been on the other side. You are too smart not to know that.”
Thanks on the smarts.
There is some unfairness in the MSM, as on the AM dial. Personally, I don’t feel Ayers should get much play. Obama’s views on Ayers philosophy is relevant, but that never was an issue. Obama does not advocate violent revolution.
I felt that the NYT stories on McCain’s possible lobbyist tryst were biased and bad journalism and perhaps had an agenda. I also saw a lot of bias in CBS 60 minutes, when they lobbed Obama soft pitches and interrogated McCain. I am not oblivious to liberal bias and political correctness and don’t like it any more than conservative bias on the AM-maybe we can agree on that.
I would love to see more conservative commentarry on NPR news instead of listening to Daniel Schorr all the time. Dianne Rehm’s show does a pretty good job of having balanced commentary. BTW, the NYT has also had multiple stories about good things happening in Iraq.
I read the NYTimes and listen to NPR because nobody else provides that level of coverage. If conservatives want a better media, they need to start one, beyond just editorial magazines like National Review and AM harranguers. There are conservative newspapers like the Washington Times or the NY Post, they just are not that good. Wall Street Journal is not bad, but more of a specialty paper.
It also is very simple to blame everything on the MSM. Mugabe does that himself. Reagan won twice and Gingrich prevailed with same media, so methinks there are many other factors at play and the MSM complaint gets overdone.
One thing though that was said at the top of the piece, that struck me, was the implication that Powell was supporting Obama from an emotional point of view and I think there is something there. My own politics are somewhere between McCain and Obama. I thought at the outset that Obama lacked experience and supported McCain for the GOP and Richardson then HRC for the Dems, and then initially McCain for pres.
Having seen these guys go through their political decathalon, I am impressed by the younger man’s chops. The public is aware of his lack of experience but they have seen a strong, thoughtful, unflappable demeanor and he has sold himself more than any media is capable of. And it is nice to have a president who speaks the language well.
George, I am overblogged and my wife is becoming a blogger’s widow so I will give it a rest for at least a few days, but have enjoyed the conversation and thanks for the civility.
>So presidents with good economies like Reagan and Clinton get praise where Carter and Bush II look bad.
Actually, it’s “Democrat presidents”, not presidents in general.
Reagan transformed the economic landscape that Carter ruined. However, Reagan was an idiot. Any success he had was just pure luck, so Clinton has been given the credit for the “great economy” post-Carter.
Bush 41 had a fairly goood economy, except for a slight decline in the last 6 months that became “the worst economy in 50 years”. When Clinton took office, all our economic troubles magically disappeared. [FYI: That slight decline all but disappeared when the figures were later refined. But by then the election was over].
Clinton’s economy began to collapse in late 2000 before Bush took office. The dot com bubble burst (fed by Clinton administration policies that looked the other way during the build up, all but guaranteeing that the bubble would burst.) Bush 43 got the blame.
Bush 43 dealt with both the Clinton recession and the 9/11 attacks, restoring the economy. Things kept improving until 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. The sub-prime/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack fiasco is the direct result of Democrat policies (both promoting these insane policies, and preventing reform of the system despite the Bush Admionistration’s efforts.)
So who is to blame for the present state of the economy? The Republican party, of course.
There’s reality, and then there’s the media.
Hey Phillip:
My whole point stated was that the attribution of credit or blame is too partisan and that the economic cycles are too strong that any policy is going to overide those changes.Politicians are proverbally poking an ocean liner with a stick and will not supercede the tides of the economy.
You sarcastically portray the media as giving all the blame to the GOP and then you attribute all the blame to the Dems.
If the media is showing a selective blaming of one side, you are doing the same thing the other way.
Reagan ran on the “are you better off than you were four years ago” and the electorate has always been quick to dump the party that got stuck in bad times, from Hoover on, of both parties. You can’t selectively credit Reagan’s good economies and then ignore Clinton’s. My point is that neither were the cause of those times any more than they were responsible for the good weather.
That is not to say that one can’t fault their policies, but one cannot guess the timing or magnitude of their success or failure and it is very easy to tout one’s side by inventing those figures. The stock market has long been an index of investor confidence and historically it has little been effected by which side held the presidency.
yes, there is life beyond politics.
but, bear with me, and feel no compulsion to respond. I am making a point about the media and you seem to dismiss it out of hand — well if it doesn’t disqualify Obama, why bother. Well, why did the media bother abou Palin’s clothes, the trooper story, the travel story, the Couric interview, etc. The public can decide — the media has an obligation to fairly report. When I said it might not be a disqualifier, I was simply saying that each of us must decide — that does not give the media a pass to not cover a story that is far more serious than most of the stories they have done on Cindy McCain, Gov. Palin and McCain.
I don’t disagree with your economic take — but I am not an economist. Perhaps Phil has thoughts on that as well.
I am just amazed that you are going to vote for a guy whose agenda is so decidedly left — and Brookings itself as done an economic analysis of his plan that is fairly critical because of its redistributionist approach.
Anyway, I want to be clear on one thing — one can disagree passionately with folks and still have a dialogue, provided the discourse is professional and not persona. See my series on William Buckley on this site — he was a master that way. So, while I like Obama and would probably greatly enjoy talking to him and debating him, I can’t in good conscience vote for him based on what I know now. But I an assure you that if he is elected, I will be fairer to him than his party was to president bush.
yonkel: There is no difference between the media and the dems :)
What the people intuitively understand is one thing. How history is “recorded” is another.
Phillip:
I will grant you a liberal bias in the media, though I see it as more of a case by case instance than a grand conspiracy. The stockholders of NBC, CBS, and Fox’s main agenda is making money, and at that level there is no political agenda.
The oft pointed figure of a large majority of journalists (though much less so of editors and publishers) being liberal is well documented, but where do you go from there. Why don’t conservatives go into journalism? You say because the universities are biased. Why don’t conservatives produce great universities?
The odd thing about the conspiratorial theory is that it runs counter to a belief in the free market. Can conservatives not compete. Certainly, I have seen enough intelligent thought on this blog that there would be the capability of putting together a newspaper with as much in depth content as the Washington Post or the New York Times, but instead the answer seems to be more inflammatory AM radio that is like the kid in the back of the room throwing spitballs, it feeds the ideologues and those that like to hate other people, and gives all the talking points of one particular side, but does not particularly satisfy the rest of the 75% of the population that are not diehard right of center and want a more neutral viewpoint even if it has some liberal bias, and I don’t know if you put Fox in that category.
George:
I see you have another thread going. It is interesting, but I probably wont step out on that minefield at this point.
Back to Powell. Did you read his entire message in full text. I did track it down at:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/10/19/transcript-colin-powell-on-meet-the-press-endorses-barack-obama-october-19/
What I found uncanny is how much he reflected my own viewpoint.
I have the premium content on Election Projection and tracking Rasmussen and Sabato, and do believe that we are going to see a blue tidal wave of 1980 proportions with really the most significant question remaining whether the Dems reach 60 in the senate.
Obama needed to pick up the three weakest Bush states- Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorodo to win and he has those about locked with about 7 states leaning blue. McCain cannot lose any of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or NC and granted he has an even shot in those, it is unlikely he can take them all. Pennsylvania was an end run, but that is now 20 points to the blue.
What is interesting, is what this will portend for the Republican party and wonder what you think on that.
I believe there will be a fight for the soul of the GOP that will be quite heated. You have McCain setting an agenda for a more liberal GOP with a break from the strong right ideologues of the Gingrich Era vs the Palin supporters who wish to return to the orthodoxy and then a smaller but fractious group of Ron Paul libertarian global non interventionists.
Interestingly I watched the local congressional debate here in the Raleigh area which is a pretty safe seat for Dem David Price, but the Republican challenger is quite the maverick a la Paul and was arguing with the Dem that we should pull out of Afghanistan. That was unusual.
Phil and I had a back and forth before on the Palin effect at the time in which she was riding high and seemed responsible for the GOP post convention bounce and definitely had energized the traditional wing of the party.
Now most polls show her as a liability and I think the myopia on the GOP side is that just because she is throwing the red meat to the base and satisfies them, it does not necessarily connect with the American public. Scott at Election Projection did an interesting piece, and he is a staunch conservative, in which he posited that Palin may have actually caused the GOP to go south.
It certainly disturbed Colin Powell and if you read his whole piece, he was deeply offended by things like people shouting traitor and Husein at GOP rallies. I was too.
I think McCain is a decent fellow who has shown himself above the type of slander and smear but he has wedded himself to a party that are still in the Atwater/Rove slash and burt methodology which does not seem to reach a new generation that have not bought into the culture wars.
Granted when your back is against the wall, one will try anything, the front runner has the luxury of being more magnanimous, and HRC was certainly willing to hit below the belt when her options were disappearing.
Lastly on the Ayers thing. There was an IC post that laid out every talking point available to link Obama and Ayers and I don’t believe it but would not have the time or interest to refute it, and have found those who are into conspiratorial theories are impossible to argue with, right or left, because they will come up with endless data, but all cherry picked to support their viewpoint. I suggest going to http://www.factcheck.org and read their take on Ayers which supports my general belief that it is largely guilt by association. As you posited in your recent post, Obama is not going to nationalize the auto industry or have radical 60s people in his cabinet. Expect Warren Buffet and Colin Powell to have strong influences. Hopefully the more conservative Dems in congress will be able to check liberal excesses, and Dems don’t usually have the level of discipline that Gingrich could muster.
I think a regrouped GOP which espouses small government, lower expenditures, personal responsibility, but also comes up with credible solutions for the environment and health care and drops the culture war antagonism, would have a chance assuming liberal excesses backfire, but a return to Reaganism I see no more likely than a return to WIlliam Jennings Bryan and the silver standard.
>The stockholders of NBC, CBS, and Fox’s main agenda is making money, and at that level there is no political agenda.
Yonkel: There is a firewall between the news room and the corporate board room. Not only can the board not influence the news, in most cases they don’t even have any contact with them. The only real exception is with family-owned news outlets (like the NYTimes). Here the board can and does set editorial policy. And, in the case of the NY Times, it’s where the most outrageous liberal bias appears.
In true publicly-owned corporations, the News Departments of the major media outlets are often viewed as loss leaders. They are there to bestow “prestige” on the brand, not to make money for it. Therefore, the fact that they are spewing liberal bias and costing advertisers isn’t as critical as it would be to the ongoing broadcast of a sitcom. Just look at CBS. Their news broadcast is in third place (and has been for years), and is bleeding money daily. Yet, they stay with Katie Couric (and I believe even extended her contract) because having here there serves a higher agenda. It’s not about the money. It’s about the message/ideology.
One related anecdote to demonstrate this. I made a presentation to the Kellogg’s Foundation once with a marketing plan that would help a charity and help the Kellogg’s brand sales. We lost specifically because of this. There was a firewall between the two, and any attempt by corporate to influence the foundation was summarily rejected. Even though Kellogg’s corporate had nothing to do with our plan, we pitched it as their brand would benefit from it. That was all that was needed to kill it.
yonkel
I hope you aware that factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg group. That’s the same Annenburg outfit that Obama worked for in Chicago. I already posted here that they twist the truth.