Home › Blogs › Jason Sterlace's blog ›

Obama, Powell, and the Next Right

Submitted by Jason Sterlace on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 19:32
in

This morning, former (Republican) Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president. 

 

 

This may be a major blow to the credibility of John McCain's candidacy, but is it a major blow for the Right?  That depends on how closely aligned you think McCain is to the Right, and how much you feel your vision of the Right would be represented by a President John McCain.

While Conservatives certainly do not want an Obama presidency--especially when Democrats control both houses of Congress with growing (possibly filibuster-proof) majorities--we must note that very few Conservaties actually want a McCain presidency, either.  Consider the language used by Secretary Powell today (0:40):

I have some concern about the direction the Party has taken in recent years; it has moved more to the Right than I would like to see it...

These kind of comments by a prominent Republican help to set the stage for a productive conversation about the future of the GOP--the very conversation that The Next Right was created to address.

I do subscribe to Jon Henke's view of the Republican Party having three main factions, and that the Party is at a crossroads of defining its mission and its message.  This is not just about new packaging of an old recipe.  There are many people who care more about specific ideals and goals than about which political party delivers them.  For example, while I (and probably Powell) identify with Henke's description of a Goldwater Republican, I am not particularly wed to the Republican brand--nor, clearly, is Secretary Powell.

Personally, I will support any Republican who can deliver on the principles of limited government, individual liberty, and strong defense.  I would also support any Democrat who could deliver on these principles.  And absent Republicans or Democrats who can deliver on these principles, I will be disenfranchised and support neither.  That is a situation that does not benefit any faction of Republican, so all Republicans should be looking to avoid it.

But perhaps the most important point for Republicans lies in what Powell says at the conclusion of the clip.

Because of his ability to inspire; because of the inclusive nature of his campaign; because he is reaching out all across America; because of who he is, and his rhetorical abilities (and we have to take that into account); as well as his substance--he has style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.  I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage.

Is Barack Obama truly a transformational figure in the sense that Secretary Powell thinks he is?  If so, and if he is elected, America will be a much better place over the next four years, and many of us who opposed him will be surprised.  Republicans will be forced to rethink the Big Government policies that have not worked for the Bush administration.

But realistically, the world is likely to see that while Barack Obama's image and brand are among the hottest in the world, he just can't live up to these expectations.  As the bar is set higher and higher, and as he is awarded a mandate on election day, and as the world rejoices and dances, there will be a distinct lack of rainbows and ponies in our daily lives.  Sure, the specter of Bush/Cheney will be there to blame for all ills, in the same way that some Republicans still haven't let go of the Carter administration, but eventually people will have to see that the government is still bloated, the budgets still don't balance, and powers are still abused.  Even under Obama, children will die of horrible diseases and rogue states will still threaten our security and our lives.

Now is the time for the Right to decide whether they will be Democrats Lite for the next decade, or something more.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

The only thing that makes sense is Powell sees this ala 1945

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:12.

Powell has never been a partisan Republican or a vocal conservative. The best analog I can think of is a Joe Lieberman---one who is traditionally committed to a strong foreign policy but is quite comfortable with liberal economic and social policies.  Hence, Powell decided against running for President as a Republican in 1996 and Lieberman's effort as a Democrat in 2004 failed badly. Neither man really "fits" their party's mold.   Powell's Republicanism was primarly a reaction to Jimmy Carter's military policies in the 1970's.

Well, time has elapsed. I can only surmise that Powell has reached an opposite conclusion from Lieberman as to whether we need an experienced man at the helm to deal with Al Queda.

America can have a "transformational" figure in the White House if the security situation has stablized. Ironically, much as the success of the UK in WWII led the voters to toos out Churchill for Clement Attlee's "cradle to grave" agenda, the success of the surge in Iraq seems to have caused this former warrior to decide he can cast his vote based on social issues and  making a historical statement.

While I respect Secretary Powell's service to our nation, I'm with Joe Lieberman on this one. I think the situation is still such that a foreign policy novice is likely to err along the learning curve, and ironically, someone convinced of their great intellect is more likely to err than someone fully aware of their limitations. 

 

Powell is a pro-abort RINO

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:49.

A conservative view is this: Powell is a pro-abort RINO and he doesnt have a conservative bone in his body, any more than say David Gergen or Lincoln Chafee ever were conservative.  the tipoff is that Powell would actually prefer horrible justices like Obama's Ginsburg than decent Justices like Roberts and Alito; it shows more about the narrowmindedness in the circles he runs in than the 'narrow' agenda of the Mccain/Palin supporters, let alone the 70% of Americans who simply want judges who rule based on law instead of personal preference.

Given Powell's lack of ideological roots, an attractive other-side candidate would 'flip them' if there was a 'hook', and for Powell the 'transformational' aspect of a fellow multi-racial candidate is the hook. In many respects, the endorsement is a bit of a yawn, considering how comprehensively the Washington liberal DC elites are shilling for Obama.  But signifying that support from the 'permanent establishment' is one that of course bodes well for liberal DC elites in keeping Republicans divided and conquered.

Powell's comments seem practically spoonfed from Axelrod, they are that obvious, shallow, and frankly unfair (he pretty much slandered McCain campaign unfairly on the whole Muslim thing). I gotta shake my head and the mind-boggling farce of praising a man's skills because he manages to run a campaign without falling apart. hint: millions of dollars and a friendly media covers many sins. This is beyond bizarre, and it tells me that Powell's endorsement whether heartfelt or not, is based on image and hype not substance and reality. Be that as it may, its a score for Obama and McCain has to soldier on with his "country first" campaign without him.

The challenge for the Republican party is this: The RINO crowd has shown themselves to be a severe anchor on the necks of the Republican party. The 'big tent' approach has brought in people who feel no loyalty to the tenets of the party grassroots - limited government, lower taxes, securing the border, prolife, pro-family, SamsClub Republicanism, etc.  If these RINOs flee at the sight of a bright shiny objects presented in phony campaigns by the other side, then they are worse than useless.

This endorsement will make non-conservative RINO operatives even more suspect in the eyes of the grassroots base.  If RINOs are leaving the GOP ship that they think is sinking, it will be left to the conservative core to right the GOP ship and, even if a minority party, have a more unified party.

 

 

well, I agree with LBJ on one point

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:55.

I'd rather have somebody inside the tent urinating out than outside the tent urinating in.

We are not getting to 51% without a certain number of social issue moderates or even liberals coming aboard for security or economic issues. I certainly hope Powell's sanguine assessment that our security needs can be addressed by a liberal novice is warranted; if not, he will rue this decision for the rest of his days.

BTW, I better not list the candidates I've advised; living in CT, they are all RINO's or DINO's!

Ironman take a look at 'Pledge with Texas' agenda

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 22:00.

We are not getting to 51% without a certain number of social issue moderates or even liberals coming aboard for security or economic issues.

That is the dilemma. But the flip-side is that you water-down the product to win over the wishy-washy and what do you get? Bathwater that NOBODY wants to drink. How is it that radical and extreme Democrats manage to get treated as mainstream, while mainstream Republicans are deems 'too harsh'.

Ironman take a look at 'Pledge with Texas' agenda and tell me what you think about it being sellable in CT. I honestly think a conservative agenda (maybe fiscal conservative/accountability conservative) can sell in CT. It's not as scary/wierd as that northeast liberal elites make it out to be. Rather it is simple - responsibility, accounability, fiscal restraint, freedom and listening to the people:

http://pledgewithtexans.com/
 

If the above agenda was presented to CT voters without a party label, I think most ordinary voters would call it good. It's the RINOs who have hollowed out the northeast parties, mainly because they are afraid to make the clear and necessary moral stands against politically correct elites.

I say we rebuild the GOP brand as a competent, pro-freedom, pro-family, pro-responsibility, pro-Govt-accountability, limited govt,100%-transparency, pro-excellence, listen-to-the-people party. Kick out the useless RINOs and run people who will live up to the brand. If such an awesome brand and agenda cant win 51% of the vote, then keep running people who can PERSUADE the voters to join and believe in the agenda, rather than give up on it.

 

 

 

 

A question about Rinos

Submitted by Terry_Mahoney on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 10:54.

I appreciate your message:

GOP brand as a competent, pro-freedom, pro-family, pro-responsibility, pro-Govt-accountability, limited govt,100%-transparency, pro-excellence, listen-to-the-people party.

My question is:  Which Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) that are currently serving fit your bill.  I am not a Republican, but from my Independent perspective, the GOP recently ejected a man who came close.  I REALLY liked Wayne Gilchrest, and not just because we're both Marine Sergeants.  To me, he seemed to fit your description. 

I was constantly amazed by his ability to honorably interpret every situation and vote (and speak) his conscience.  I frequently did not agree with him, but I always respected him.

Let me know, and not just about Sgt. Gilchrest. I'd like to see who you would have lead the new organization.

Semper Fi,

Terry

The thing about RINO's...

Submitted by sweatingbanshee on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 21:47.

I mean, really, John McCain is pretty much a RINO.  He wanted to regulate gun shows, then there's McCain-Feingold, his support of the bailout, and his seeming love of more government programs if not more government spending.  McCain doesn't like "wasteful" spending, but he doesn't dislike spending.  If Obama's tax plan is justifiably called welfare, isn't it justifiable to call McCain's $5000 refundable health care tax credit welfare?

But I guess when you continually shift what it means to be a Republican, then you shift what it means to be a RINO.  Powell is a RINO by any stretch.  But I would call just about every "Republican" in DC a RINO.