It was very powerful, but I was a little confused when he said he was worried about two conservative judges being appointed to the Supreme Court. This wasn't a concern for him in 2000, and I don't quite understand why a guy who says he's a Republican wouldn't want more conservative judges.
 

It was a powerful endorsement, but not surprising. Powell is a RINO.
 

If serving as the loyal Secretary of State under a Republican president, carrying water for him, and even, to this day, refusing to tell the whole truth about what happened under him doesn't make one a Republican, then the logical question is: what does, pray tell?
 

C2H50H, that doesn't make you a Republican. It just makes you a loyal guy. That said, I think he's still a Republican of a very moderate sort.
 

Tray,

I'm sorry, I ask again: what, pray tell, makes someone like McCain or Palin a Republican, but not Powell?

And, for that matter, what makes you or Quidpro an expert on the subject? Please share with us what objective indications will allow us, as well, to see that somebody is a Republican.
 

The fact that Powell endorses the Democratic nominee should be a "sufficient indication" that he is not a loyal Republican.
 

Like I said, C2h50h, I take his word that he's a Republican (though I'm not sure exactly why he chooses to identify as one - he says he doesn't care for conservative judges, conservative economic policies, and what passes for conservative foreign policy these days), but serving in a Republican's cabinet doesn't make him one. That's just a fact. Many people have served under Presidents of opposite parties than their own. I guess he's an Eisenhower Republican. Doesn't have very firm ideological commitments, but leans ever so slightly right of center.
 

The insinuation is that loyalty makes one a Republican. So, I guess that means loyalty to party.

Showing an independent conscience or will rarely wins points in any authoritarian organization.
 

A day late and a dollar short. I hope he burns in Hell.
 

he's still a Republican of a very moderate sort.

A revealing comment. I get it: a Republican cannot be a moderate. He must be clearly, unambiguously, beyond a doubt, right wing. Moderates need not apply.

I respected the Party before it got hijacked by the far right. The Party's views weren't mine, but at least it stood for something. It's sad to see it come to this.
 

Noooo - you can be a moderate Republican. I didn't imply otherwise. I'm a Republican who's voting for Obama myself. That said, I'm not sure why Powell's a Republican. He says he's worried about conservative judges, offered a full-throated defense of taxation, says he doesn't want more 'orthodox' conservative economic policies - he might as well be a liberal hawk.
 

All Powell did was come to the aid of his country, "country first" style. Our political system is now so crippled that the nation's crises and needs can't even be discussed coherently. He flagged the problem and acted accordingly.

To as much as hint that we might not exactly own the world is now anathema, yet the world owns a little more of us each day and acts that way. We just lost the right to appoint the World Bank President, in case you missed it, folks. And don't think that is unrelated to our having trekked mud throughout the world financial system. When the dust settles we'll be a shadow of our former selves. Only don't breathe a word of this or someone will think you like it that way.

And that's pretty much how it goes down the list. Our healthcare system is in shambles. We're the world's laughingstock. We pay more to insure fewer than most of the world can imagine. Yet veer one inch toward Margaret Thatcher's favored system and you're a communist; reduce that to a centimeter and we'll add the charge of going metric.

Taxes pay for needs. Ours are mounting. Some are better able to pay than others. Yet acknowledge this and you're a class warrior or bag man for a crime syndicate. And now we're fascinated with a taxpaying plumber on the make who isn't a plumber, didn't pay his taxes, and won't make it unless he can get his name on a book written by someone else.

And I haven't even gotten to the terror thing.

McCain's campaign is what we've been seeing here since Reagan took office. It's compressed, desperate, and bare-knuckled, but the themes are familiar. Now the cause is so in the toilet that there's nothing to do but pull out the stops. But the stops have been on the organ console all along. McCain is just the Phantom of the Opera, accompanied by Bride of the Phantom. And so more of us are wretching.

Powell is, yes, a Republican. Is he loyal? Well, what good would he do his party by swearing allegiance to a cause whose time is spent? Is the price of loyalty a suicide pact with the denizens of a bunker? Isn't the surprise that we had to wait this long before someone stepped up and said what he did? And are we clear-headed enough to have taken him seriously unless he put his vote where his mouth is?

Rove tried to end the two-party system and now he has, only (God willing) not the way he meant to. Powell only wants it back. That requires mutual, civil dialogue by citizens who can stare realities down. That's what I took from his endorsement. My translation: "I belong to one of two political parties in contention over a decent society." If you think this disloyalty, then your image of loyalty hails from Der Untergang.

As for Bachmann, the gnome barely deserves comment, but I can't resist. When Chris Matthews asked her how many of her colleagues were un-American, I expected her crazed eyes to hone in on a ketchup bottle and come back with "57!"
 

In both the USA and the UK, elections to the legislative bodies have the same model: first past the post elections for single member constituencies, a model which tends to favour the development of two large 'broad-church' parties.

In other countries they have systems with proportional representation and/or multi-member constituencies which tend to favour more fragmented parties and ad hoc coalitions to obtain a parliamentary majority. In such PR systems there may be multiple parties in 7 broad groups from left to right: viz: (a)fascist right; (b)hard right; (c)centre right; (d)liberal/centrist; (e) democratic left; (f) greens; (h) marxists/trotskyists.

In the 'broad churches' of two party politics, a voter only has the choice of right or left so the party of the right encompasses everything from fascists to some of the centrists and the party of the left, the other half of the spectrum. This means that the parties are essentially fighting for the votes of the people in groups (c),(d) and (e).

But the danger for the two party system is that if a "broad church" party gets hijacked by activists from the extreme end of the spectrum who shift policy too far from the centre, the centrist voters will defect come election time.

We saw this in the UK with trotskyists hijacking the the Labour Party until purged out by the Smith/Kinnock leaderships - which made Blair electable. Likewise with the Thatcherite hijacking of the Conservative Party - which eventually made it unelectable - although Cameron is now having some success with a purge of the Thatcherites.

I would postulate that in the USA, the Republican Party has been hijacked by the far right for some time and what one is now seeing is rejection of the policies of groups (a) and (b) by many voters in groups (c) and (d).

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's discourse with Chris Matthews seems to me to me to epitomise the kind of far-right Republican whose agenda will encourage groups (c) and (d) to vote for a Democratic Party candidate, while Colin Powell, seems to epitomise the kind of centre-right Republican whom groups (c), (d) and (e) all find acceptable and reassuring.

Needless to say, the concerns expressed by Colin Powell, have resulted in the ideologues of groups (a) and (d) seeking to denigrate him.

I posted his endorsement on this thread and, immediately, our resident LSR chipped in with this gem:-

"This is Powell's payback for being ignored and given the heave ho as Sec State. Powell and the GOP used one another as a political convenience. However, Powell was always a cautious military bureaucrat with center-left domestic leanings and as such not really a Republican. You will notice that Powell did not come out for Obama until he thought that Obama would win. Powell is not decisive and cannot make the tough decision when the outcome is in doubt. Powell is seeing a kindred spirit in Obama."

Then on this thread LSR Bart added this defamatory gem:-

"In the Persian Gulf War, Gen, Schwarzkopf devised the aggressive end around offensive. Powell was the one who advised that George I stop the war when we had the enemy on the run resulting in 300,000 massacred Iraqis and an unresolved, ongoing Iraq threat."

But as Arne Langsetmo observed on the same thread:-

"Weird. Seems that "Bart"'s hatred of Powell is of quite recent origin.See here "Bart refers to Powell's "resumé" of accomplishment") Wonder what made him change his mind?"

Powell and G.H.W. Bush
LSR De Palma of course well knows that George H.W. Bush managed to assemble a grand coalition for the Gulf War and even managed to get Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other
oil-rich sheikdoms to pay for the war. But a term of that unholy compact was that the coalition would not seek to overthrow Saddam - whom the Sunni Gulf Sheikhdoms preferred to leave in power as a bulwark against the Shia majorities in Iran AND Iraq.

Saudi Arabia and the Sheikhdoms also have Shia populations who have historically been oppressed so as to perpetuate the undemocratic regimes of the Gulf. De Palma himself writes of the consequence in this words:

"George I encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rebel with promises of US aid. He betrayed them. The most shameful episode in my life was leaving the Shia at the town we were protecting from the Republican Guard as they begged us to stay and actually ran after our vehicles trying to come with us to Saudi. I am sure many of the Shia I came to know were murdered as a result."

As Bart well knows, the policy of not continuing the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait on to Baghdad and régime change, was high policy devised and approved by the then President and Commander-in-Chief and given to Powell to execute. Which Powell, ever the officer and the gentleman, duly did - precisely as ordered.

Powell and George W. Bush
Colin Powell could so easily have been the first black President of the United States. It is well-known that he refused to run out of deference to the wishes of his wife, who probably had good reason not to wish to see her husband go the way of JFK, RFK and Dr Martin Luther King.

Mr Powell regularly received a public approval rating a good 10 points ahead of President Bush and to the outside world he was the acceptable face of an unacceptable US Administration. For that reason during his time as Secretary of State he regularly drew the short straw and was sent off to push the Bush Administration line to people who did not wish to hear it, memorably at the world climate change summit. Good soldier that he is, Secretary Powell was utterly faithful to his Commander-in-Chief and he presented the Administration's case to the best of his ability, no matter what he may privately have thought of his brief.

His presentation to the UN Security Council on 5th February 2003 of the US case for war against Saddam Hussein was yet another such occasion.

At the time the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs was one Charlotte Beers, an advertising executive who had been the only executive in the advertising industry to have served as Chairman of two of the top 10 worldwide advertising agencies: J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather. Prior to her appointment to the State Department spin machine, Ms. Beers was Chairman of J. Walter Thompson Worldwide, having returned to the very agency in which she started her advertising career. She was given the task of preparing the US presentation to the UN and with talent like hers at his disposal it was to be expected that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council (prepared by the necons of the Cheney/Rumsfled axis) would be slick in the Madison Avenue sense of that word. Slick it most certainly was and (to use a metaphor from figure skating) it got high marks for "artistic impressions".

However, selling the case for war to the UN Security Council and the world is not the same as selling Uncle Ben's Rice to the US housewife (or even to a French one) and slickness of presentation is no substitute for substance. So Powell's presentation got much lower marks for technical merit. In particular, it failed to convince the French.

It is worth remembering the observations of the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, at the same meeting as recorded in the record of the proceedings of the UNSC:-

He highlighted two options: a long and difficult war, following which it would be necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force; or the day-by-day effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. No one could assert today that the path of war would be shorter than that of the inspections. No one could claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war was always the sanction of failure. The United Nations inspectors should be given the time they need for their mission to succeed. He proposed a further meeting on 14 March at the ministerial level to assess the situation.

The use of force was not justified at this time, he emphasized. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks and could bring the unity of the international community into question. That would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness. Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of that scarred and fragile region. He shared the same priority of fighting terrorism mercilessly. Given France’s present state of research and intelligence, in liaison with its allies, nothing had allowed it to establish links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. On the other hand, the impact of disputed military action on the plan to defeat terrorism must be assessed.

He said that France did not exclude the possibility that force might have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision. The Members of the United Nations were the guardians of an ideal and of a conscience. Their onerous responsibility and immense honour must lead them to give priority to disarmament in peace. That message came today from an old country. France, like the continent to which it belonged, had known wars, occupation and barbarity. France did not forget and knew everything it owed to the freedom-fighters who came from the United States and elsewhere. Yet, it had never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. It wished resolutely to act with all members of the international community, which, together, could build a better world."

I remember watching the proceedings and noting that the French position statement drew applause from those present - a rare and officially discouraged event at Security Council meetings. It was plain from the sense of the meeting that a majority of Council Members supported the French position that war was an option to be avoided at all possible and that the end of the inspection road had not yet come.

A visibly shaken Colin Powell stated after the meeting that the United States would "consult with its allies".

Well time has shown the French position on the spurious US/UK WMD claim to have been correct - and good soldier's Powell's reward for his loyalty? He was given the push by the Toxic Texan.

For me, Powell has once again shown a high degree of courage and principle by speaking the truth about the unacceptable nature of Senator Slime's campaign. He will be vilified by this by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and the other loathsome spotted reptiles. But Powell, has put country before party. No bad thing.

And if a few years in the political wilderness would convince the Republican Party that they have to be a "one nation" party to regain the trust of the electorate - would that be a bad thing ?
 

The fact that Powell endorses the Democratic nominee should be a "sufficient indication" that he is not a loyal Republican.

# posted by Quidpro : 8:26 PM

I assume this means you have never used the term "Reagan Democrats"?
 

When Zell Miller gave a speech at the GOP convention, I don't recall any Democrats claiming he was "not a Democrat." Bat-shit crazy, sure, but that's not a bar for being a Democrat, although it certainly made him more a fit for the GOP (think Michele Bachmann, Larry Craig, Mr. King from Iowa, etc.)

Even the loathsome Lieberman was not tossed from the party. He left of his own accord, and even now is only spoken of derisively, not as a Republican.

It's been apparent for a long time that one of the fundamental differences between the modern Democrats and the Republicans was the tolerance for hypocrisy. Democrats perceived as hypocrites do not get elected, while Republicans seem to get along just fine with their base (Newt Gingrich, et al.)

Now, with the castigation of Powell, it seems that hypocrisy has gone beyond mere toleration and has become expected of anyone aspiring to be a Republican leader.
 

It's been apparent for a long time that one of the fundamental differences between the modern Democrats and the Republicans was the tolerance for hypocrisy.

I believe Jonah Goldberg explicitly describes it as "being more comfortable with contradiction."
 

"The Toleration of Hypocrisy" theory .. eh see2aich50.. lol .. not bad ..
 

A political party, similar to a church, is a voluntary organization. No one is compelled to join or remain. If one does join, then one is expected to adhere to the party rules and beliefs.

No one questions Powell's right to endorse or support Obama. What is suspect is the fact that he wishes to be identified with a party whose policies and candidate he opposes. This makes Powell a "RINO" and disloyal, at a minimum, as previously posted.

In this sense Powell is similar to those politicians who proudly parade their catholicism when seeking votes, while consistently voting for the expansion and protection of abortion "rights". But none dare call this "hypocrisy". Otherwise, as c2h50h so eloquently stated, such Democrat politicians who fit this description could not get elected
 

"Like I said, C2h50h, I take his word that he's a Republican (though I'm not sure exactly why he chooses to identify as one -"

There's no mystery about it; When he retired from the military, he was openly considering a run for President, and the Democratic nomination was already tied up by an incumbent. Thus, he came out as a 'Republican'. Even though policy-wise he was a very Democratic looking Republican...

Then, IIRC, his wife told him to forget about running for President, or forget about being married, (Such was the rumor at the time, anyway.) and he ceased having any reason for making his status as a Republican look plausible. But admitting he was really a Democrat would have made the initial claim to having been a Republican look exactly as opportunistic as it really was.

So he just goes his merry way, calling himself a Republican, and endorsing Democrats. And Republicans roll their eyes at the breathless stories about the 'cross=party' endorsements.
 

c2h50h said...

When Zell Miller gave a speech at the GOP convention, I don't recall any Democrats claiming he was "not a Democrat."

Were you living in a cave?

In any case, Zell was not a Dem as that term is meant today. His party left him a long time ago.

So far as foreign policy goes, Joe Lieberman is not a Dem.
 

"like a church" -- which church? (Who is the "pope" of the Republicans? And the Democrats: more like Unitarians, Methodists, or the Amish?) This is ridiculous.

I prefer the sports league analogy. The parties are like the leagues of American baseball:

-- they operate by somewhat different rules.

-- the organizations basically compete for the right for some people (the "owners") to take inordinate amounts of money from people for inconsequential or inane purposes. These "owners" are essentially the same people in both leagues ("parties") due to the necessity for enormous amounts of money required to enter the game.

-- there are regional teams and then there are nationally recognized leaders.

-- they've colluded in anti-competitive legislation so that they don't have competition from potential third-party organizations.

-- ordinary people often form irrational attachments to the parties, in spite of the fact that they get no real benefit no matter who wins or loses.

Apropos of which, Favre may no longer be a Packer, but he will always have been a Packer, and not a minor one.

Oh, and Bart? Find a prominent Democrat who said that Zell "wasn't a Democrat."
 

Hey, but C2dude, find a prominent Republican who's said Powell's not a Republican. Radio talk show hosts don't count, because I'm sure we could find hundreds of radio people/bloggers who said Zell wasn't a Democrat.
 

Tray,

Go ahead and try to find the hundreds (here's a hint: there weren't hundreds, even just blog commenters -- it's not how Democrats think.)

Look, either the party affiliation of a person is determined by the individual, or it is not. For most Democrats (and for me), the answer is that it is.

On the other hand, it appears to be some people here think that, by claiming Powell isn't a Republican, he can be made "not a Republican."

This indicates a fundamental difference in not just the ideology but the cognition of the left and right, and I find that interesting.
 

Zbigniew Brzezinski had an interesting take on the Powell endorsement:-

Powell Endorsement Very Significant
 

An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya