• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right

zimmer said:
How did you win?
How did you win the last midterms?

Being honest?
Being forthright?
Telling people precisely what you wanted to do?

No.

Ferraro nailed Obama cold.
He is there now, but in reality it was hysteria and ignorance that got him elected.

As for the midterms?
All the wacked out leadership went into hiding.
You ran D's that were out of step with the party leadership.
You used Foley as a foil.
Then you brought Kerry out in the last minute and he fumbled on the 1 yard line.
Many in your party thought ugh-oh.

Once the circus acts are spent, what have you folks got?

Little to nothing.

You are the party of factions, not a coherent, time tested philosophy that works.

What cheap trick will you folks try next time in an effort to camouflage the truth with your willing propagandists?

Fineman: 'Mainstream Media Party' is over - Howard Fineman- msnbc.com

Yes we lost, but we lost because we don't have folks coming out and espousing conservatism. Once that happens, we'll be fine.

Until then, we'll have to watch the amateur hour circus act run the country.

Carter was good for the Republican party.
Obama... it is a little too early to have massive buyers remorse, but there are some already who have stated... this is not what I voted for.

.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're sore that we won. Noted.
 
GAHH! I just had a major write up and accidently hit "reload" hotkey. God Damnit.

Alright, going to condense it. Captain America, as a note, this is mostly to you.

You're either letting your annoyance for TD irritate you, or quite frankly you're AMAZINGLY ignorant of conservatism.

Every single complaint and bitch you've had in this thread from the semi legitimate (legally denying marriage) to the asanine (dress codes) that you've tried to put forth as an example of why the GOP needs to not go farther to the right is like saying MUSIC needs to stop being produced because Death
Metal sucks. You're not bitching about Conservatism, you're bitching about Social Conservatism. More to the point, you're bitching about Social Conservatism that is generally taken to an extreme point and is in no way balanced and thus contained to a reasonable level by other portions of conservatism.

Powell can't be more wrong. WI explained this a good bit. Giving people the choice of Democrat of Democrat Light is not going to work, you're going to amazingly depress your base and when it comes down to it the people you hope to snag are still going to look between the two and go "why go with the pretenders when I can have the original?"

The thing the GOP needs to do IS to go farther to the Right, but not in regards to Social Issues where they're already EXTREMELY Right, but in all other aspects of conservatism. Political Ideology is a lot like a wheel and you end up going so far to the right at times you end up left and vise versa, which is the exactly the case of what happens with Social Conservatism if its not tempered by the rest of conservative ideology.

The GOP will ASSURE itself of death if it completely rejects social conservatives, without a thought. Its not surprising that every liberal, especially some of the most extreme and most hyper partisan on this board, run around continually cheering this fact as if it needs to "save" the GOP. Like they give two ****s about the GOP? They loathe it. Read anything written by these hyper partisan and, like their conservative counterparts, the seething hatred flows forth from it. Yet THESE are the foolish folk that we're supposed to listen to to "Save" our ideology.

May I kindly say to those genius liberals that think they know so well what conservatives should do....Mind your own ****ing Business and let us deal with our ideology.

The GOP had basically given the middle finger to one segment of conservative ideology before with fiscal conservatives. They ended up driving some to 3rd parties, others even to the democrats, and more so simply depressing them to the point they don't bother voting or never donate or participate when in the past they would. To redo this same thing with social conservatives would yield similar issues....a fragmented base that can't give a clear national paltform and will stagger on in mediocrity.

Late term abortions is NOT something the majority of American's want. Most Americans do have a sense of national pride and would like to see immigrants actually assimilate into society and come here legally, not come through illegally and simply leech off of this land. Most people I dare say don't want nudity flaunted wherever and whenever in society, detailed sex acts being talked about in schools, or making it perfectly okay for a middle school girl to come to school in booty shorts with a thong hanging out and a see through belly shirt. You only show ONE extreme and expect people to accept your word as gospel that that's somehow PROOF that an entire ideology is rejected. I say Bull****, utter completely and steaming, Bull****.

The only way the GOP will truly manage to return and sustain at a national stage is if they have a clear, balanced, CONSERVATIVE platform that equally embraces fiscal responsability, limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. Until all portions of conservatism are promoted and balanced equally AND once in power these things actually REMAIN the case instead of being only talk useful to get elected then the GOP is doomed to mediocrity. To completely disavow social conservatism is as much of a death knell as focusing primarily on social conservatism.
 
Powell supported Obama because of Powell's own strategic vision for the U.S. For the love of God I wish some people on this forum would actually READ A BOOK or at least do some intense internet research on a man's politics before they launch accusation like "Powell voted on race."

Powell did no such thing and not a single person on this forum can prove otherwise. John McCain promised more of the same with regard to his foreign policy. If you study Powell's career and his military philosophy what Bush did and McCain signaled he would do was in stark contrast to Powell's better judgment and overall strategic vision.

Obama was absolutely the best choice among the two because he was the most likely to actually follow Powell's own strategy on foreign policy and military use.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Yeah...it couldn't POSSIBLY be because Powell, like most of America, thought Obama was clearly the better choice. :roll:
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's the case. However, that doesn't bode well in regards to him also trying to claim he's a Conservative.

He's conservative in regards to the size and scope of government? Really, so he's supporting a guy pushing for Universal government health care?

He's conservative in regards to fiscal issues? Really, so he was supporting a guy pushing for numerous increases in spending that won't just last for years but for decades upon decades? For a guy that planned on increasing the taxes through a large variety of different ways?

Social issues? Military issues? Give me a break.

Maybe he thought that Obama was the better choice than the historically moderate conservative McCain. I'm not going to sit here and go "its because its black".

But if its not that, then its because he prefered liberal ideas to the conservative ones.

That doesn't make him a bad person, that doesn't make him racist, what it does most likely make him is not conservative.

He either voted for Obama because he liked his politics, in which case he liked distinctly liberal views over moderate conservative views, or he voted for some other intangible reason. Now, that "politics" may have been singularly his views on the war. If that's the case, I start to wonder about Powell's intelligence if he actually believed there'd be a significant change with Barack Obama in charge. Not to mention, the fact that he's not talking about military issues, but other issues here that the Conservatives need to go liberal on make me believe that its not JUST the military issue that attracted him.
 
Last edited:
Too many people feel that Republicanism strictly equals conservatism. It doesn't. If anything should tell you this it's the existence of a moderate movement to the center within the party. Just like not all Democrats are dyed in the wool liberals.

Party for party's sake right?
 
I don't think anyone is confused that Republicanism doesn't equal Conservatism. Notice, I didn't say that I'm unsure of Powel being a Republican, I'm just unsure of him truly being "Conservative". Again, not also saying "Liberal", but at the most he's a moderate with leans equally both ways.

The issue is this move to the middle by the GOP, which I think is less as prevalent as you think in regards to the majority of its base, being found mostly in those closest to the media. While not all Democrats are dyed in the wool liberal, the parties identity and general starting point IS liberal. The Republican Party doesn't need to be ALL dyed in the wool conservatives, but it HAS to have a party identity of staunch Conservatism at its core.

The reason many people are happy to reject the moderate conservatives to liberal members of the Republican Party right now is that the parties leadership has let it lurch so far to the "middle" now that its disenfranchised and pissed off a great deal of its base and they're sick of it. They feel its time for a purge and that the only way to get back to a conservative starting point is to focus on actual conservatives. Once you relay the foundation, THEN you can start adding on those of a more moderated stance.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think anyone is confused that Republicanism doesn't equal Conservatism. Notice, I didn't say that I'm unsure of Powel being a Republican, I'm just unsure of him truly being "Conservative". Again, not also saying "Liberal", but at the most he's a moderate with leans equally both ways.

The issue is this move to the middle by the GOP, which I think is less as prevalent as you think in regards to the majority of its base, being found mostly in those closest to the media. While not all Democrats are dyed in the wool liberal, the parties identity and general starting point IS liberal. The Republican Party doesn't need to be ALL dyed in the wool conservatives, but it HAS to have a party identity of staunch Conservatism at its core.

The reason many people are happy to reject the moderate conservatives to liberal members of the Republican Party right now is that the parties leadership has let it lurch so far to the "middle" now that its disenfranchised and pissed off a great deal of its base and they're sick of it. They feel its time for a purge and that the only way to get back to a conservative starting point is to focus on actual conservatives. Once you relay the foundation, THEN you can start adding on those of a more moderated stance.
Click to expand...

But if it is the strong base that is the most out of tune with the people, ie..the most recent elections, then it would seem logical that if the middle is purged for the base, the party will become less attractive and weaker.
 
Zyphlin said:
Perhaps that's the case. However, that doesn't bode well in regards to him also trying to claim he's a Conservative.
Click to expand...

Did Powell actually claim to be a conservative or did he say he was Republican? I have never thought of Powell as a "conservative", so if he claims that he is, I would have to agree with you there.
 
Thales said:
I'm with Newt Gingrich - anyone who thinks they can win elections without getting some portion of the moderates is sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

I doubt very seriously that Newt Gingrich would agree with you on this point. Taking his statement out of context proves nothing. :rofl

Also, how is that Biden thing working out... what a VP he is turning out to be! :roll:
 
tlmorg02 said:
But if it is the strong base that is the most out of tune with the people, ie..the most recent elections, then it would seem logical that if the middle is purged for the base, the party will become less attractive and weaker.
Click to expand...

And I disagree with you on so many levels on this.

The Strong Base is NOT out of tune with the people, and nothing about the recent election shows me this. The base couldn't stand the person they were having to vote for, only being waken up when Palin got put on the ticket and even that could do so much. McCain is the POSTER BOY for a more moderate Republican party and he failed. The "moderates" that his long history was meant to pull in were enamored with Obama and wasn't giving McCain a second look, and the conservative base didn't buy anything that he tried to pander to them with once he got the nod.

Indeed, McCain was dead in the water and thought to have no prayer prior to the point where he made a drastic act that actually got the base somewhat interested and increased the flow of money not to mention helped him greatly in the polls and likely is the only thing that kept it from being a full out landslide victory.

The most extreme social conservatives may be out of line with the majority, but that doesn't mean they need to be flat out ejected. What it means if they can't be the sole focus of what the party is preaching to. I have no doubt if the Republicans started pushing a BALANCED conservative platform, that did include social conservative aspects, but was tempered from going too extreme by other portions of the ideology, that the majority of the most extreme social conservatives would stick with the party while at the same time bringing fiscal conservatives that have been 3rd party and moderates lately back into the fold. If they completely abandon the social plank of the platform then all you'll see is a 10-15 year shift akin to what we've seen in the past 10 years, only replacing social conservatives with fiscal conservatives, but leaving the Republican Party in no better shape then it is now.

This last election doesn't show the Republicans must move to the center, it re-enforced that they need true balanced conservatism.
 
rebelbuc said:
I doubt very seriously that Newt Gingrich would agree with you on this point. Taking his statement out of context proves nothing. :rofl
Click to expand...

I don't think he'd disagree at all. Newt is an astute Political Scientist and politician, not an ignorant dolt in regards to these issues. There's maybe 20 to 30 percent of the population that is firmly rooted in one of the two major ideologies. The rest of the middle verge anywhere from "moderate", "independent", "moderately [ideology]", or just somewhat political apathetic people.

You will NEVER win a general election JUST by getting your base, this goes for democrats and republicans. You must ALWAYS add people from the middle.

The difference Gingrich may have is the PROCESS in which to get moderates. Some people believe that one must be extremely moderate, or even have tendancies of the other side, to be able to get moderates. I reject this notion, with both Obama recently and Reagan in the past as examples of this. You CAN attract moderates by sticking to your ideology fully, by presenting it in a charismatic and easy to understand way that shows them WHY its the way to go. It also needs to not be an EXTREME message. There is not simply two degrees, extreme and moderate, there is gray area in the middle there.

I reject the notion that the GOP must go to the left to get moderates, I think they've tried this and failed. I think they need to be firmly rooted in conservatism, but a balanced version where no particular portion is extreme while the rest are left for dead. And I completely disagree with the notion that one can win an election without attracting moderates, independents, and people with only a weak conservative lean.
 
Zyphlin said:
And I disagree with you on so many levels on this.

The Strong Base is NOT out of tune with the people, and nothing about the recent election shows me this. The base couldn't stand the person they were having to vote for, only being waken up when Palin got put on the ticket and even that could do so much. McCain is the POSTER BOY for a more moderate Republican party and he failed. The "moderates" that his long history was meant to pull in were enamored with Obama and wasn't giving McCain a second look, and the conservative base didn't buy anything that he tried to pander to them with once he got the nod.

Indeed, McCain was dead in the water and thought to have no prayer prior to the point where he made a drastic act that actually got the base somewhat interested and increased the flow of money not to mention helped him greatly in the polls and likely is the only thing that kept it from being a full out landslide victory.

The most extreme social conservatives may be out of line with the majority, but that doesn't mean they need to be flat out ejected. What it means if they can't be the sole focus of what the party is preaching to. I have no doubt if the Republicans started pushing a BALANCED conservative platform, that did include social conservative aspects, but was tempered from going too extreme by other portions of the ideology, that the majority of the most extreme social conservatives would stick with the party while at the same time bringing fiscal conservatives that have been 3rd party and moderates lately back into the fold. If they completely abandon the social plank of the platform then all you'll see is a 10-15 year shift akin to what we've seen in the past 10 years, only replacing social conservatives with fiscal conservatives, but leaving the Republican Party in no better shape then it is now.

This last election doesn't show the Republicans must move to the center, it re-enforced that they need true balanced conservatism.
Click to expand...

The one problem with your theory is that the extreme social conservatives that are the current base of the Republican party will never stand for a more "tempered" approach. They have ZERO interest in the fiscal "Conservatism" of Goldwater. They are three issue voters....anti-abortion/anti-gay rights/ and anti-immigrant. They will never allow the party to do what you suggest. Hell....they rejected Romney because he wasn't "Christian" enough for them, do you really think they are going to allow alternate views in the party?
 
Disney, I've explained my point on this to you countless times with each time you just sticking your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah, not true, social conservatives suck, I know everything about them, nah nah nah nah nah". I have no desire to get into it again.

Will they like it greatly? No. However, as long as they're not completely chucked out on their ass like some are suggesting or not completely ignored once republicans get power (like fiscal and governmental conservatives were), the vast majority are likely to still vote republican and be enthusiastic to varying levels because they're leagues better than the other main alternative and more realistic than alternatives more in line with their thinking. Its only when you completely throw a portion of the ideology into the garbage, like many liberals ignorant of this situation keep suggesting due to their own idiotic stereotypes, or when you almost completely ignore a portion of it once in power that you start seeing large groundswell for a third party, decided reduction in donations and support, and major voter apathy.
 
Zyphlin said:
Disney, I've explained my point on this to you countless times with each time you just sticking your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah, not true, social conservatives suck, I know everything about them, nah nah nah nah nah". I have no desire to get into it again.

Will they like it greatly? No. However, as long as they're not completely chucked out on their ass like some are suggesting or not completely ignored once republicans get power (like fiscal and governmental conservatives were), the vast majority are likely to still vote republican and be enthusiastic to varying levels because they're leagues better than the other main alternative and more realistic than alternatives more in line with their thinking. Its only when you completely throw a portion of the ideology into the garbage, like many liberals ignorant of this situation keep suggesting due to their own idiotic stereotypes, or when you almost completely ignore a portion of it once in power that you start seeing large groundswell for a third party, decided reduction in donations and support, and major voter apathy.
Click to expand...

In no way would I chuck them out, they provide too many votes, when motivated, and too much money. However, I would control how much zealotry was released in order to not allow the whole party to be overshadowed.
 
Zyphlin said:
Disney, I've explained my point on this to you countless times with each time you just sticking your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah, not true, social conservatives suck, I know everything about them, nah nah nah nah nah". I have no desire to get into it again.

Will they like it greatly? No. However, as long as they're not completely chucked out on their ass like some are suggesting or not completely ignored once republicans get power (like fiscal and governmental conservatives were), the vast majority are likely to still vote republican and be enthusiastic to varying levels because they're leagues better than the other main alternative and more realistic than alternatives more in line with their thinking. Its only when you completely throw a portion of the ideology into the garbage, like many liberals ignorant of this situation keep suggesting due to their own idiotic stereotypes, or when you almost completely ignore a portion of it once in power that you start seeing large groundswell for a third party, decided reduction in donations and support, and major voter apathy.
Click to expand...

But that's where I think your theory is wrong. Look....McCain tried to do that and they threatened to stay home in large numbers until he started pandering to them. I don't think that large numbers of the right-wing base stayed home and he still lost by fairly substantial numbers.
I agree with you in theory.....the problem is, the GOP is way too afraid of the base to do what you suggest. True fiscal conservatives have lost control of the GOP and I doubt they are going to regain control of the party any time soon. The extreme right-wing base is never going to share control of the party as you suggest.
 
disneydude said:
But that's where I think your theory is wrong. Look....McCain tried to do that and they threatened to stay home in large numbers until he started pandering to them. I don't think that large numbers of the right-wing base stayed home and he still lost by fairly substantial numbers.
I agree with you in theory.....the problem is, the GOP is way too afraid of the base to do what you suggest. True fiscal conservatives have lost control of the GOP and I doubt they are going to regain control of the party any time soon. The extreme right-wing base is never going to share control of the party as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Except your wrong.

McCain was not a believable figure...in the least. McCain is not a balanced conservative either, so trying to prop him up as proof that my assertion is false is worthless. McCain made a career over the past 8 years of ripping conservatives, ripping evangelicals, siding with Democrats routinely, and even when siding with republicans doing so while insulting them out of the corner of his mouth. So no, when he got the nod the social conservative base simply didn't believe that he'd actually represent the things he was saying he would in regards to social issues let alone other issues. Look back at what I wrote, I stated it would take not only running on it but also actually DOING IT once you're in office. No one believed the later part would EVER happen with John McCain. He's a HORRIBLE example to try to prove me wrong, instead he's the PERFECT example of why trying to run Joe Moderate and expecting to get the base as a whole (As Social Conservatives weren't the only part of the base that wasn't keen on him, fiscal and governmentally focused conservatives weren't big on him either) is foolish.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except your wrong.

McCain was not a believable figure...in the least. McCain is not a balanced conservative either, so trying to prop him up as proof that my assertion is false is worthless. McCain made a career over the past 8 years of ripping conservatives, ripping evangelicals, siding with Democrats routinely, and even when siding with republicans doing so while insulting them out of the corner of his mouth. So no, when he got the nod the social conservative base simply didn't believe that he'd actually represent the things he was saying he would in regards to social issues let alone other issues. Look back at what I wrote, I stated it would take not only running on it but also actually DOING IT once you're in office. No one believed the later part would EVER happen with John McCain. He's a HORRIBLE example to try to prove me wrong, instead he's the PERFECT example of why trying to run Joe Moderate and expecting to get the base as a whole (As Social Conservatives weren't the only part of the base that wasn't keen on him, fiscal and governmentally focused conservatives weren't big on him either) is foolish.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse, but what can the GOP do to ensure that the religious crowd shows up to vote without a religious candidate on the ticket? The main argument I heard during the GOP primary was that none of the candidates, save Huckabee, were suited for the religious voters, so they stayed home on election day.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think anyone is confused that Republicanism doesn't equal Conservatism. Notice, I didn't say that I'm unsure of Powel being a Republican, I'm just unsure of him truly being "Conservative". Again, not also saying "Liberal", but at the most he's a moderate with leans equally both ways.
Click to expand...
I think he is moderately conservative. I'm with you on this.

The issue is this move to the middle by the GOP, which I think is less as prevalent as you think in regards to the majority of its base, being found mostly in those closest to the media.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to how you get there from here. As an example I present to you the nomination of John McCain, who was carried by a decent majority within the GOP.
While not all Democrats are dyed in the wool liberal, the parties identity and general starting point IS liberal. The Republican Party doesn't need to be ALL dyed in the wool conservatives, but it HAS to have a party identity of staunch Conservatism at its core.
Click to expand...
Why? So it can be different than the liberals? When you say this it sounds as though you are advocating for the duopoly of the political system in spite of what party members may actually want.

The reason many people are happy to reject the moderate conservatives to liberal members of the Republican Party right now is that the parties leadership has let it lurch so far to the "middle" now that its disenfranchised and pissed off a great deal of its base and they're sick of it. They feel its time for a purge and that the only way to get back to a conservative starting point is to focus on actual conservatives. Once you relay the foundation, THEN you can start adding on those of a more moderated stance.
Click to expand...
Maybe the moderates are trying to purge the staunch conservatives. Ever think about that?
 
Lerxst said:
I'm curious as to how you get there from here. As an example I present to you the nomination of John McCain, who was carried by a decent majority within the GOP.
Click to expand...

McCain's nomination in the primary is a diverse thing.

For one, you had "The base" split between Romney, Huck, and Paul with some also leaning towards Rudy and McCain. However, for the most part, moderates seemed pretty set on McCain and Rudy, but Rudy was non-existant for the most part in this so you had McCain.

It canibalized itself, with in the end it falling essentially between McCain and Huck, with the social conservatives backing Huck and the rest going "oh god...I'm not sure about either of these" andp robably taking a chance McCain had a better shot at beating Obama or Hillary.

Why? So it can be different than the liberals? When you say this it sounds as though you are advocating for the duopoly of the political system in spite of what party members may actually want.
Click to expand...

In a word, yes.

I'm advocating Duopoly because Monopoly of political ideas is bad. Its the same reason that I do NOT want moderates completely purged from the Republican party. You need the other side within any movement, or country, to keep things moderated a bit and to keep you continually re-examining things.

You've got the Dems, and lets call them Coke.

Then you have the Reps, and they have two choices to be...Diet Coke or Mountain Dew.

The voters are the consumers, and for the sake of things lets say the consumers key thing is taste. Most of those consumers may not mind Diet Coke, but why buy Diet Coke when you can buy real Coke and get the full taste instead of the watered down sweetner? Sure, a few people may prefer the taste of Diet Coke but most people that want Coke are going to go full out for the real thing.

With Mountain Dew you may very well find some people that go "Ugg, I don't like this at all" because its nothing like Coke at all. However, there's a better chance of getting a larger following than with Diet Coke because all those people that are going "I don't like Coke at all, but this seems interesting and I like it" are suddenly all gung ho for you.

I'm advocating that the Republican foundation must be solidly conservative because without it there will be no national conservative message and no national debate other than to be Left or More Left and I don't think that's good...no more than I would think Right or More Right would be a good thing.

Maybe the moderates are trying to purge the staunch conservatives. Ever think about that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are. Actually, I think that's EXACTLY what they're trying for....and I rebel against it, fight against it, and will happily try to remove those that are doing so because I think they are doing a detriment to the party, the ideology, and the country by doing so. I as a voter want a national party that represents my ideals at least in a majority way. I want a conservative party that is actually viable on a national scene and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and just go "Well, some big talking heads in washington want to dictate to us little people whats 'really best for us' so I'll just shut up and move along". **** no. Let them try to purge the staunch conservatives. If the Republican party is going to be of any use to this country, to conservatives, and to the majority of its base in the next 5 to 10 years that purge needs to be faught against and fail or we're condemned to probably 15 to 20 years of unthinking, unchecked, and absolutely worthless years of Left or More Left.
 
Where did this ridiculous view come from that any political party is one opinion, rather than a range? The GOP is and has been for a while the party ranging from center-right to far-right.

Right now the centrists who decide elections are fed up with the Republicans of the last few years and have started voting Democrat. It is because of this shift that the Republican Party has become more right-wing, not the other way around: as it loses moderates, the "average member" becomes more conservative. It did not lose moderates by not being moderate enough. It lost moderates by being hypocritical and lacking clear values.
 
disneydude said:
Yeah...it couldn't POSSIBLY be because Powell, like most of America, thought Obama was clearly the better choice. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, if that's what Powell thought, he, like the rest of the non-Americans for voted for Obama, was wrong.

That state of affairs happens all the time on the left.

disneydude said:
No....Powell recognized that Obama was a better leader and better capable to lead this country.
Click to expand...

Sure, because Powell could see that Obama's skin wasn't white.

If you want to claim it isn't about race, you need to cite a demonstrated qualification that Obama has (he has none) that Skippy also cited in his endorsement of the Kandidate From Kenya.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Colin Powell's rationale, at the time he made the endorsement, can be found here: Powell endorses Obama for president - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC- msnbc.com
Click to expand...

So he says McCain picked Palin, a sound conservative with more qualifications to hold the office of President than the Democrat candidate and his plagiarizing running mate combined, wasn't a sound choice. Must be because she's not only a woman, but white, too.

Skippy was unhappy at the "personal attacks" by the GOP on the Kenyan Kandidate, as if he's been totally blind to the tactics employed by the Democrats since the Reagan Era, tactics the Red Queen herself labeled "Politics of Personal Destruction". I guess he also missed The Messiah's deliberate introduction of racism into the campaign with his "dollar bill" comments. That couldn't be racist, right? After all, Obama is black, like Powell, and hence can't be racist.

Seems pretty light on what Obama's qualifications are, though, merely mindlessly repeated attacks on the Republicans that he'd heard from others.

AH! Here's a positive "qualification" he cites:

“This is the time for outreach,” Powell said, saying the next president would have to “reach out and show the world there is a new administration that is willing to reach out.”
Click to expand...

He's saying Obama can kiss European ass better than McCain. Frankly, I don't see a need to kiss European ass at any time, and this "qualification" isn't valid.

Here's this one...

But as he examined both campaigns in the last few weeks, he said, he became “concerned” that “in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure how to deal with the economic problems.”
Click to expand...

So he's supporting a candidate who espouses all the wrong economic approaches, instead. Well, if Skippy is this ignorant, his opinion doesn't matter. Why does his opinion matter again? Oh, yeah, because he's black, he's a turncoat, and he's black.

“Every day, there was a different approach,” he said, adding that he also “would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court.”
Click to expand...

See? Skippy isn't an American, even if he's registered in the GOP. He would have difficulty with judges that obeyed the Constitution.

Yep, he came up with no real reasons, because his real reason is that Skippy's black and his Messiah is black, too.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except your wrong.

McCain was not a believable figure...in the least. McCain is not a balanced conservative either, so trying to prop him up as proof that my assertion is false is worthless. McCain made a career over the past 8 years of ripping conservatives, ripping evangelicals, siding with Democrats routinely, and even when siding with republicans doing so while insulting them out of the corner of his mouth. So no, when he got the nod the social conservative base simply didn't believe that he'd actually represent the things he was saying he would in regards to social issues let alone other issues. Look back at what I wrote, I stated it would take not only running on it but also actually DOING IT once you're in office. No one believed the later part would EVER happen with John McCain. He's a HORRIBLE example to try to prove me wrong, instead he's the PERFECT example of why trying to run Joe Moderate and expecting to get the base as a whole (As Social Conservatives weren't the only part of the base that wasn't keen on him, fiscal and governmentally focused conservatives weren't big on him either) is foolish.
Click to expand...


No. McCain didn't do that over the last eight years.

He made a career of doing that, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom