Home › Blogs › Blue Collar Muse's blog ›

Colin Powell is a Republican?

Submitted by Blue Collar Muse on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 15:03
in

Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN's coverage of Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama.

It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell's endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.

By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell's endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.

Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller's endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.

There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.

Colin Powell's rationale isn't even close to as specific. It's filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama's association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.

In short, Powell's objections to McCain aren't policy based. They aren't ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy's than to the one you are generally associated with.

Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.

If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I'm willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.

That's an endorsement I could respect.

Blue Collar Muse

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Comments

A few things you seem to have missed

Submitted by Terry_Mahoney on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 22:10.

Your assessment of Gen. Powell's endorsement missed a few things, and your analysis of Democrats similarly crossing the aisle to endorse also made some rather convenient leaps.

First, you stated:

 would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists.

As to the first, you are correct, he did not DIRECTLY come out and state that he thought Obama was qualified to be CINC, in exactly those words, but considering what he did say about Obama's judgement, thoughtfulness, etc, he gave a pretty clear picture of what he, arguably one of the most successful CJCS in recent history, considered the correct traits in a POTUS.  This was from his personal experience interacting with Obama.  I cannot concieve of anything else he could have said to be more convincing without becoming tedious.

He also pretty clearly addressed the second part of your point.  He scorned talk of Ayers as irrelevant and unsubstantiated.  If that does not satisfy you, that is your choice, but he addressed it adequately.

You also discussed Miller, Koch and Lieberman, and their vilification by "the left".  The attention the MSM paid to their choices lent them greater relevance, and the attacks from more biased sources were just as baseless and ineffective as your complaints about Powell.  Well, with the exception of Miller.  His clownishness (a duel!) did not serve him well, but certainly didn't hurt Bush.  Also, Lieberman was essentially ejected from his party BEFORE he endorsed a Republican for President.  IIRC, he still maintains his seniority in the Senate, as well as his comittee seats.  (And if the Dems change that, they will be just as idiotic as the current small-tent/homogonous-thought GOP strategy. Elections are not war. Only war is war)

Finally, you state Powell's endorsement was nebulous and his "objections to McCain aren't policy based. They aren't ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. "  Powell mentioned one of the biggest, yet unheralded, issues of this election:  the supreme court. If you don't recognize this as a primary policy and ideological issue, you are a little off your game. 

Your closing argument, about Powell's non-Republican status, is indicative of the cancer that is eating apart the GOP.  Your party will continue to shrink and shrink with attitudes like this.  You certainly don't reflect an outlook that will revitalize the GOP.  By assuming the mantle of judge with the power to excommunicate others, you only weaken your own position, driving away moderates who certainly don't agree with every plank of your personal platform.

If you want this site to reflect the Next Right, start thinking about what Powell's endorsement means, and not trying to vilify that meaning.

Semper Fi,

Terry

Terry, thanks for the comment ...

Submitted by Blue Collar Muse on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 09:12.

I think you pretty well caught the meaning of my thinking but seem to dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant.  Who knows, perhaps you are even right to do so.

The main thrust of my post is that the 3 Democrats I mentioned, in the words of John McCain, put Country First.  They endorsed a man they felt was best for their country, not their party.  Doing so, they were very careful to delineate exactly why they were doing so.  With the exception of ZM, as I mentioned, a Dixiecrat, these guys remained Democrat in their voting and convictions before, during and after said endorsement.  It further should be said there was and is nothing Democratic or Republican about support for the war except which party was in power when it happened.  Had Al Gore been President, his party would have supported his decision to go to war with the same vigor they opposed Bush.  Democrats opposed the war for Party reasons, nothing more.

CP's endorsement of BO was nothing of the sort.  He did not list any massively urgent issue that stood head and shoulders above the generally accepted need for party unity which compelled him to break with the GOP.  Everything he did say, including your example of SCOTUS appointments (which I'll grant you a half point on for my excluding from policy based objections) reflected his holding Democratic values while wanting to remain a Republican.  Indeed, it was CP who injected "extremism" into the argument.  He said he feared the possibility of "conservative" judges being appointed.  He didn't say whether or not he would prefer "centrist" or "liberal" judges in their place.  But his support for BO would tend to support the idea that "liberal" judges are OK with him.  Again, that strengthens my contention that he is not a Republican.

Your final thoughts on Big Tent, Small Tent are interesting but not particularly relevant except when used to smear the Right.  My point is not to smear CP.  It is to better define what it means to be GOP.  If the Right is clear in its definition of itself and the Left does likewise that will statistically account for around 60% of the electorate.  The other 40% can then decide which way they will break depending on the issues of the day.

That is what CP did.  Rejecting the GOP line, he broke for Obama.  Not a problem at all until he said he still considers himself a Republican.  That is laughable.  None of the things he said support that contention.  He is an Independent at best and a Democrat at worst.  Nothing wrong with either of those choices either.  Except when you try to get me to believe you can act like one and yet be the other.

My insistence that words and terms mean things and should be used as such is not, as you say, narrow minded and exclusive.  It is reality.  I don't want CP tossed out of the Party.  I want his vote and his endorsement and his support.  I'm willing to have McCain define himself clearly, and Obama too, in a bid to get that support.  But if there's a question as to which side CP will support, and absent an urgent and overriding emergency reason to switch sides, then Powell and others should proudly claim their Independent status and support who they will. 

The problem arises when men like CP don't and guys like you miss it.  But then, what fun would blogging be if everything were clean and precise.

Your thoughts?

Ken