As most of you will already know, Colin Powell thoughtfully endorsed Obama this morning on Meet the Press. You may not agree with his assessments, but his measured and thoughtful analysis is what we need more of in politics. What we don't need is the clearly partisan approach of the Keith Olbermanns, Rush Limbaughs, Bill Maher's, Bill O'Reilly's, etc. Powell is not objective--no one is. But this fair weighing of both sides is sorely lacking these days.
I firmly believe his perspective on America in general is where the country is headed, whether one agrees or not, whether Obama is elected or not.
Here's the video of his endorsement:
By the way, I don't know Obama, but once again someone who does puts to rest the attempt to defeat Obama by casting doubt on his character. If you disagree with Obama's positions more than you disagree with McCain's positions, vote against him. Or better, if you agree with McCain's positions more than you agree with Obama's, vote for him.
But don't vote because of some underhanded email, letter, or TV ad rumor against either candidate. They are aimed at the weak of mind. Don't be weak of mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Ken, This is a massive endorsement for Obama. Even though we never found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq I have always been impressed with Powell. Although I just can't get past his views on abortion and I can't vote for Obama, I don't feel good about McCain. Colin Powell said so many things that I agree with. I hate the negative tone the Republican ticket has been using, it embarrasses me. And as much as I am impressed with her in many ways, I have come to the realization that Sarah Palin is just not ready to be the president. I'm sure we'll see her in the years ahead but she needs another term or two running Alaska.
I think that Obama is going to win anyway, but this endorsement may be the nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign.
BTW, as shallow as the America public is and this is going to sound, if the Republicans had Romney (or even Huckabee) with Sarah Palin things would be different. The ticket would look like Ken and Barbie. Just looking at a ticket like that would give confidence and excitement. McCain suffers from the same problem that Bob Dole had running against Clinton. They look like wax figures on camera, grimacing and looking so stiff. Even if you have a good message, if you put people to sleep they can't hear you. Hmm, that may be a good lesson for preachers.
I genuinely feel sorry for McCain because I think the guy we saw at the Al Smith dinner and on Letterman is the real John McCain. It makes you wonder how much control candidates have over the campaign ads and tactics their parties put out. Even here in Grant County I've had people from both Tim Harris and Joe Pearson indicating that they are not fully in control of the smear ads going out en masse!
I think abortion is the only real issue for evangelicals that legitimately might stand in the way of voting for Obama. So the question is whether the potential benefit of voting for McCain on this issue outweighs any other factors that might go in favor of Obama or against McCain. Each will have to decide.
Thanks for your objective and thoughtful response, Mark!
The way we "do" politics in this country is just one of those things that makes me cry out, "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." I mean that with all sincerity, I'm weary of it. Don't get me wrong, I put evil, pain, famine, etc. above politics, but I truly hate it.
Before anyone else responds to what I said, no, I don't have a better way. I'm just griping. ;-)
A couple of things I'd like to add/question. . .
First, Colin Powell hasn't been politically relevant in quite some time, so I'm not sure how many Americans were eagerly waiting his endorsement. He is not (or never has been) a conservative, which means this is not like a cross-over either; he tends to contradict his own opinion much of the time (even in the same interviews!).
Second, ". . .Colin Powell thoughtfully endorsed Obama this morning. . ." As opposed to whimsically endorsing Obama? This makes little sense on its own.
Third, "What we don't need is the clearly partisan approach. . ." Why? Does our country not run on partisan politics? Aren't there two primary parties? I know you are wanting to rid the process of divisiveness, but then use that language instead of rhetoric which speaks of unity but which really only means not considering those ideas which you don't happen to like.
And this is Obama's whole campaign - the great unifier - who has the most liberal record in the Senate! So just like the historian who foolishly thinks he has written objective history, we have a politician who foolishly thinks that he can have a nonpartisan approach to government. Really, I think this is the product of Americans' exhaustion and disdain for the lies, smears and corruption rather than a real critique of the political system.
One more thought. . .IF the Obama line is not 4 more years of Bush (and McCain = W); why is this a good endorsement? Wasn't Powell the Secretary of State who presided over the *failed war in Iraq* as they have said it? It would seem to me that this would hurt Obama's case more than help it. . .it either contradicts their position or demonstrates a distinct double-standard.
The notion of objectivity has indeed become very problematic in a postmodern world (although I would say that many use postmodernism simply as an excuse to be premodern--not even to give any thoughtful consideration of contrasting points of view).
We can no doubt identify areas of non-objectivity in Powell and problem areas, as well as "political" aspects to his endorsement. Did he really suspect that there weren't any WMD when he sold us all on it? It was my trust of him as much as anything that made me feel a little better in the lead up to the war. Or was he lying to us because he was obeying his commander in chief? Very difficult and a big mark on his career, I think.
All that being the same, I can tell the difference between a mind that isn't really interested in the truth and one that is. A person who would not change their position no matter how much evidence weighed against it is not really interested in truth. Ironically, many of those in Christian circles who trumpet TRUTH are the least interested in it. I will grant an exception to those who would be willing to admit that the evidence was against them and yet under full rational consideration make an irrational leap of faith into that position.
What would you grant to the other nations and the many UN resolutions which spoke of the WMDs in Iraq? If Powell was wrong, he was wrong with others (I don't think it helps your case to plant seeds of doubt that W was intentionally lying about them, because it simply is not true). What we've seemed to have forgotten is not that we didn't find the WMDs in Iraq but that we DIDN'T FIND them because they're somewhere else. And one should take note of what Powell has and has not said. . .for he knows very clearly what very few in the world know (and almost no American civilians know) about what we DID find in Iraq - something which most people should not ever be told.
Yes, there were WMDs at one time - he was actively using them against his own people - along with other things which most cannot stomach. So, what did he *sell* you on? National security and a ruthless tyrant who was brutally murdering his own people and was moments away from launching some serious stuff. Any of that come to pass?
Powell made a good sell, it seems.
Again, I have no problem with him changing his mind. But realize that his tendency is to do so not because of a conviction to truth, but because he genuinely does not have solid positions on things. I can remember this going all the way back to the mid-1990s when he was being interviewed by mainstream media while considering running for president. He is simply inconsistent - he is a good soldier (he can take orders and implement them), but he is not a good leader in terms of setting the policy and moving forward. That's really the essence here.
orries much about such labels. Nor should any person of integrity care more about adjectives than verbs.
Perhaps it would be impolite to remind people that it was not Powell but instead George W. Bush who actually presided over the Iraq war, with goading from Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, not to mention Wolfowitz, Addington, and Abramoff. Powell will forever be embarrassed by his presentation to the United Nations, so thorough and compelling and yet based on lies. When he represented our nation before the world Powell clearly believed that the evidence was accurate, although many in the administation knew otherwise. Do you really want to blame the one who believed the lie rather than those who perpetrated the deceit? If one can fault Powell for his actions it would be for not departing much sooner. If he had only resigned in protest after it was clear that Cheney had usurped Powell's role in order to create a war, then perhaps the last few years would have turned out less tragically.
But what matters most is not Colin Powell's party affiliation, his military service, or his tenure as Secretary of State of the USA. It is his words, and they are indeed thoughtful and worthy of our consideration, regardless of who said them. How sad that some people seek to besmirch his reputation rather than rebut his arguments honestly.
I would love to know (though of course it's impossible) how much Obama's blackness affects Powell's personal feelings toward the man. Kind of the reverse of how you (Ken) suspect white folks' racism will slightly affect the final voting.
For the record, the black church (or at least the one I frequent) is just as beholden to Obama as white evangelicals were to Bush in 2004. "This is a historical time, the most important election in our lifetimes..." Always discussing the historical important of a man of his race in the race, not on specific policies that pertain to the church. Don't tell the IRS, but Obama flyers showed up in the lobby after he came to Marion High School. (For the record - it was a church member who did it and the pastor was gone that week and was later upset).
It's no surprise that Rush Limbaugh is already saying that Sec. Powell's endorsement of Obama was race-based, but George Will also raises the same question and that's disappointing. Will is a better analyst than that.
Not many African-Americans have aspired to the presidency but there are a few-- Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, Alan Keyes. Powell backed none of these, but he did support one white man for President, George W. Bush in 2000. Is it really that difficult for while Americans to accept that a politically moderate African-American man might endorse another African-American man for President based on factors other than his race? People, there is a rapidly growing number of self-described conservatives who have publicly announced their support for Sen. Obama, and an even larger number that express deep concerns about the McCain-Palin ticket. There's a very easy explanation for Powell's statement today. He cares very deeply about the future of this country, and he trusts Barack Obama to be the superior candidate. Powell understands the Presidency better than any of us and he would not be getting involved unless he thought that this election mattered a great deal.
I wouldn't accuse a man of Powell's ranking to draw his opinion on the basis of race, but as Ken keeps pointing out, no one is completely objective and issues of race will always exist, even if pervasive, systemic, overt racism is vanquished
My neighbor and good friend is an immigrant from El Salvador who came over about 20 years ago. Established his family, got a great job, and moved into our cul-de-sac. This is the first election in which he's donated money and volunteered (for Obama). When he goes to the office, however, he won't make any of the phone calls to potential voters. He does this on the account of his think accent - what white folks will think of his across the phone.
I don't know if this is turning into an abomination for Dr Schenck that Rush has entered the conversation or not. . .he certainly didn't have the best of words in the above comments. But let the record stand that I was not the first to invoke his name into this.
To be fair to Rush, here is his statement from Politico:
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
It appears to me that this is a comment about race and politics, which is not necessarily a racist statement (certainly not as racist an endeavor as wondering how many people will vote against Obama because of his race). I think Rush raises a good point here, and points again to (what I've been saying all day long here) Powell's most natural tendency to contradict his own position(s).
Well Hugo Chavez, Maddonna, the gay rights coalition, The French, Fidel Castro, the abortion rights, Hollywood, rappers, most main stream media and probably Osama bin Ladin himself endorses Obama. Big deal! Now we can add Colin Powell.
Colin - just another liberal whack-job swallowing Obama's lies. They're all the same.
The only reason why Powell is endorsing this man is because of his personal agenda and race. Powell if you were to look at everything he stood for in the past the way he aligned himself and then line up Obama and McCain he would align himself up with McCain.
Also why do you never talk about all the money that Obama has raised and where it is coming from?? Or what about his birth certificate?
Also FYI I don't hate Obama I just don't agree with his policies like letting the money trinkle down. I was in a huge city this weekend and on the corners seeing homeless people as for change....I wanted to say don't you worry A CHANGE IS A COMING!! hahaha
I received an email about Obama not being born here, but I always wait to see if those things get discussed in the mainstream media--and particularly until I have heard both sides debated--until I give any credence to them. This is why I don't trust the "there really were WMD" argument :mic makes. I don't even hear the Bush administration saying this.
In the end conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, less likely to be true than likely to be true. That's why we call them conspiracy theories--they require us to think that things aren't the way they seem. That doesn't of course mean they aren't true, it just means that they are less likely to be true.
So is it possible that Obama has got all his money from shaky sources? Sure. But until it hits mainstream discussion and good arguments are presented on both sides, I'm going with the "20 dollars from millions of different people" answer. I haven't personally donated to him, but I know people who have, and I've certainly got the phone calls, letters, and knocks on my door. I've never seen such a massive grass roots movement! I have no problem at all believing that he has raised this money from millions of little people (and of course a few big ones).
Post a Comment