Colin Powell on Face the Nation

Politics • Views: 3,244

Here’s Colin Powell on Face the Nation, addressing the attacks launched on him by Rush Limbaugh and former VP Dick Cheney.

I had big differences with Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State, but I believe he’s right on the money when he says the Republican Party needs to reach out and be more inclusive. Embracing the most right-wing elements and driving out centrists and moderates is a recipe for disaster.

Youtube Video

This graph from a new Pew Research study shows that the number of people who identify as “independent” (and I’m one) is surging:

Jump to bottom

658 comments
1 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:40:45am

I have never identified myself as belonging to any party, and this Republican purging is one of the reasons why.

2 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:40:55am

That graph really says it all.

3 Last Mohican  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:43:42am

I've never really understood why anyone who's not a professional politician would want to identify himself or herself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." What does that mean? That we would only consider voting for candidates from one party or the other?

4 Opilio  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:43:47am

re: #1 FurryOldGuyJeans

I have never identified myself as belonging to any party, and this Republican purging is one of the reasons why.

My 30 years as a registered Republican ended last year. I'm much more comfortable as an Independent.

5 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:44:46am

The problem that I see is that the Republicans are reaching out but in the wrong direction. I has no interest in Ron Paul, Glenn Beck nor their policies and ideas.

6 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:45:19am

re: #2 Sharmuta

That graph really says it all.

It says that in the last 5 months both "major" parties have suffered statistically (percentage wise) the same loss (Repubs -4%, dems -6%)

In that there are more registered Dems in the country than Repubs, the 25 difference is actually more substantial

7 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:45:22am

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the dems made us look weak and hypocritical.

8 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:45:56am

re: #3 Last Mohican

I've never really understood why anyone who's not a professional politician would want to identify himself or herself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." What does that mean? That we would only consider voting for candidates from one party or the other?

For a large chunk of people there is no considering one way or the other. If the person running has the right letter after their name, they get the vote no matter what they would do once elected.

9 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:46:09am

Anybody that endorsed Obama for president can keep his advice to himself about where the Republican Party needs to go.

10 astronmr20  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:46:12am

Because being inclusive worked wonders for the magnanimous John Mccain.

//just sayin'...

11 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:46:47am

re: #6 sattv4u2

It says that in the last 5 months both "major" parties have suffered statistically (percentage wise) the same loss (Repubs -4%, dems -6%)

In that there are more registered Dems in the country than Repubs, the 25 difference is actually more substantial

AVANTI - have you seen this poll?

12 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:47:35am

The only Democrats I have ever voted for:
Jim Blanchard (Governor, MI, 1982)
Edward Vrdolyak (Chicago Alderman, 1987)
Bill Clinton (1992)
They are nothing compared to today's Demo☭rats.

13 livefreeor die  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:47:48am

I don't know about other states but when we moved to PA 13 years ago and I tried to register as Independent, the woman told me that I would be listed as belonging to Lyndon Larouche's party. I explained that I wanted to be listed as "unaffiliated" but she said that that was not available. I'm not sure what was going on.

14 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:48:07am

re: #6 sattv4u2

It says that in the last 5 months both "major" parties have suffered statistically (percentage wise) the same loss (Repubs -4%, dems -6%)

In that there are more registered Dems in the country than Repubs, the 25 difference is actually more substantial

This isn't about actual party registration, even though I would imagine there is a lot of overlap, this is about self-identification; people who declared themselves on a survey to be a D or R.

15 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:48:35am

re: #7 redshirt

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the dems made us look weak and hypocritical.

I don't see anywhere in that article that he suggested the party is big enough for Obama supporters. Do you. Please show us.

But, I would have no problem if some of those defecting democrats in that poll would vote republican next time around.

16 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:49:27am

re: #14 FurryOldGuyJeans

This isn't about actual party registration, even though I would imagine there is a lot of overlap, this is about self-identification; people who declared themselves on a survey to be a D or R.

Logic says that if you 'declared yourself" that you're most likely registered that way, or else you would have 'declared yourself" an indie

17 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:50:40am

re: #4 Opilio

My 30 years as a registered Republican ended last year. I'm much more comfortable as an Independent.

During my years as an Independent I have noticed that when I talk to politicians of either branding that they immediately really start listening to what I have to say when I mention I am not party registered.

18 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:51:51am

Similar thoughts from Paul Krugman.....
State of Paralysis

California, it has long been claimed, is where the future happens first. But is that still true? If it is, God help America.
....
To be blunt: recent events suggest that the Republican Party has been driven mad by lack of power. The few remaining moderates have been defeated, have fled, or are being driven out. What’s left is a party whose national committee has just passed a resolution solemnly declaring that Democrats are “dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals,” and released a video comparing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore.

And that party still has 40 senators.

So will America follow California into ungovernability? Well, California has some special weaknesses that aren’t shared by the federal government. In particular, tax increases at the federal level don’t require a two-thirds majority, and can in some cases bypass the filibuster. So acting responsibly should be easier in Washington than in Sacramento.

But the California precedent still has me rattled. Who would have thought that America’s largest state, a state whose economy is larger than that of all but a few nations, could so easily become a banana republic?

On the other hand, the problems that plague California politics apply at the national level too.

19 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:51:56am

re: #16 sattv4u2

Logic says that if you 'declared yourself" that you're most likely registered that way, or else you would have 'declared yourself" an indie

Logic and politics, the twain never seem to meet. ;)

Likely, yes, but not an absolute guarantee.

20 Last Mohican  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:51:58am

re: #13 livefreeor die

I don't know about other states but when we moved to PA 13 years ago and I tried to register as Independent, the woman told me that I would be listed as belonging to Lyndon Larouche's party. I explained that I wanted to be listed as "unaffiliated" but she said that that was not available. I'm not sure what was going on.

It sounds like you may have encountered a Lyndon Larouche freak working in the voter registration department. There should be serious punishment for people who do things like that. Just like there should be serious punishment for whoever printed up those Spanish-language ballots in 2008 with Obama's box pre-checked. I'm sick of my country's election system being abused. It doesn't happen in other democracies.

I used to register as an independent most of the time. Now I'm a registered Democrat, only because there were some Democratic primaries that I wanted to vote in (e.g. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary).

21 HAL2010  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:52:12am

Watching the graph it seems the number of people who call themselves republicans began to drop after 2004, which I'm guessing means after the election.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Bush won the election with the smallest every margin for a sitting President.

Anyone know if this is correct?

The current climate in the GOP reminds me in many ways in which the conservative party found itself in after 1997, following the election of New Labour. Those Tory MP's who didn't loose their seats were the ones who were from safe constituencies, and the result was an inward-looking, ideological party, who became far more right wing than it even was under perhaps Margret Thatcher. It was not until 2005, and the election of David Cameron that the party began to modernize, after three election defeats. After many years searching for the party's soul, the conservatives will most likely win the next general election, following a modernization project that Cameron began the second he was elected party leader.

If anyone is interested I could write about some of their policies later on.

(Disclosure: I am a member of the party, and have been since 2005)

22 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:52:28am

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

Powell himself says he is still a republican.
I am saying we are better off without him.
I believe Charles thinks we are better off with him.

23 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:53:46am

re: #22 redshirt

Powell himself says he is still a republican.
I am saying we are better off without him.
I believe Charles thinks we are better off with him.

We are better off with him.

24 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:54:17am

re: #9 LGoPs

Anybody that endorsed Obama for president can keep his advice to himself about where the Republican Party needs to go.

* * * * *
Colin Powell is a situational politician and former military man.

General Powell held his fire against Saddam Hussein's murdering raping Republican guard in 1991, but now comes out from behind Obama's coat tails, barrels blazing against Republicans.

Powell hid behind Richard Armitrage's outing of Valerie Pflame's information for three years while our Secretary of State. Powell hid behind the NYT and others who targeted the Bush Administration for three years when Powell had exculpatory evidence in his hands, since Richard Armitage was his best friend.

Pardon me while I barf at this perfumed politically correct general, especially later on today when he takes the baton at the Memorial Day concert with Tom Cruise's wife and other Hollywood celebrities with whom he now hangs out.

General Powell, You don't hold a candle to Robert Herries, who should have been named Joint Chiefs of Staff, instead of you, the politiically correctly appointed Colin Powell.

25 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:54:33am

re: #9 LGoPs

re: #9 LGoPs


Anybody that endorsed Obama for president can keep his advice to himself about where the Republican Party needs to go.

You do realize that's about 53% of the population, right? How are you ever going to win an election by excluding 53% of the voters?

26 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:54:57am

I thought Mr Powell brought up some good points, and he was certainly more gentlemanly than many of his detractors.

I heard an interview with him back in the 90s, and it was obvious from that interview he's very, very moderate. Many of his ideas left me thinking he belongs with the democrats. I think it's his security concerns that have kept him in the republican party. I'm still not sure why he identifies with the republicans, but I guess that's his concern.

What he says about growing the base is true, and that the republicans could use a military styled post-election critique- I agree. No officer or elected member of the party should have to genuflect to a pundit. That they feel they have to speaks a lot about what is wrong with the party.

27 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:55:28am

re: #22 redshirt

re: #23 Walter L. Newton

We are better off with him.

as long as he endorses or otherwise backs the republican running. I'm sure he pulled some votes Obamas way by endorsing him, those same votes that would have gone to Mccain if Powell had backed him

28 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:55:42am

Is it really too late to get back to some core values and principles such as fiscal conservatism and smaller government? Or is an ideological purity purge all we have as the core now?

29 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:55:50am

Powell has had a distinguished background of public service & is a Republican if he says he is.
There is another issue though, he wants to be listened to as a Party reformer.
He would have much more cred if he didn't go to the other side & support Obama.
Lots of people who were not crazy about McCain did not defect.
If you want to modify people , It is not a real good idea to oppose them & then come back lecturing.

30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:55:51am

re: #21 HAL2010

Hey HAL! I would guess that George Bush was also the most hated person to ever win an election.

I would guess that incumbents win pretty handily or are defeated.

31 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:55:59am

Ok, why did Colin Powell vote for Obama?

He is really a moderate and felt McCain was too far to the right? not

He was disenchanted by the direction Bush had taken the country? maybe

He fell for the BS speeches Obama made during the campaign? perhaps

Colin Powell admits in this interview that he still considers himself a Republican. He is a very intelligent man and has the resume to be the POTUS himself. So, why would a "life long Republican" suddenly vote for a Democrat?

It's about race, pure and simple. He voted for Obama because of his race. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. But, why nobody calls him on that is curious. Afraid of being called racist? Colin Powell is free to vote for whoever he chooses. BUT, If Barack Obama was a white guy and was spouting off the same load of horse hockey he did during the election, Colin Powell probably would have not voted for him. Nothing in his past suggests he is a leftwinger. Everything is Obama's past present and future suggested he is a radical leftwinger.

Colin Powell should repent and come back home to where he belongs. Unless of course, he is in favor of the current direction of the country and wants more of what Obama is offering up. If that is the case, he should leave the party.

32 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:03am

Charles,

The graph you put up is interesting: While those identifying as Independents has gone up 9 points, it shows a 4 point drop in membership of the Republicans over the past 5 months, but a 6 point drop in the Democrats.

If the graph shows the GOP is loosing support, the Democrats are loosing more.

That said, Powell has some good points. The Republican Party won't win the elections by becoming more extreme in views & narrow in support.

Subtext to the video clip of Cheney that set up the interview: Powell lost the battle in infighting with Rumsfeld when Cheney supported Rumsfeld. When Powell left Bush's cabinet he was very embittered by the experience. History has shown, at least on how to fight the Iraq war, Rumsfeld was dead wrong.

33 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:05am

re: #10 astronmr20

Because being inclusive worked wonders for the magnanimous John Mccain.

//just sayin'...

* * * *
Gen. Colin Powell was an "advisor" to McCain's campaign, before jumping ship as it were. How's that for moderation?

34 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:34am

re: #7 redshirt

And in 2012, when some 0bama supporters realize he's not what they thought and they want something different, are you going to keep them out?!

35 HAL2010  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:34am

re: #22 redshirt

Powell himself says he is still a republican.
I am saying we are better off without him.
I believe Charles thinks we are better off with him.

Powell is the sort of man the GOP (in my humble, British opinion) needs to win elections. A centre-right guy who favours solutions over blind ideology. Under Reagan the GOP was the party of solutions, now its the party of no sayers and blind ideologues. The former won 49 states, the latter thinks Palin and Jindal are the GOP's best hope.

36 rwmofo  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:44am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

re: #9 LGoPs

You do realize that's about 53% of the population, right? How are you ever going to win an election by excluding 53% of the voters?

There's about 40% dug in on the right and left. Reagan won 49 states with a 59-41% vote total. The fight is for a majority of the middle 20%.

37 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:56:56am

re: #2 Sharmuta

That graph really says it all.

Mercutio.

38 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:57:01am

"Independent" is the name of a party in some states. I've registered in CA, OR, WA, and NM, almost always as "Declines to state," because that's what they call it if you don't want to register in a party.

39 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:57:05am

re: #2 Sharmuta

That graph really says it all.

The graph says the Dems have lost more support than the GOP has.

40 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:57:37am

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Similar thoughts from Paul Krugman.....
State of Paralysis

California, it has long been claimed, is where the future happens first. But is that still true? If it is, God help America.
....
To be blunt: recent events suggest that the Republican Party has been driven mad by lack of power. The few remaining moderates have been defeated, have fled, or are being driven out. What’s left is a party whose national committee has just passed a resolution solemnly declaring that Democrats are “dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals,” and released a video comparing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore.

And that party still has 40 senators.

So will America follow California into ungovernability? Well, California has some special weaknesses that aren’t shared by the federal government. In particular, tax increases at the federal level don’t require a two-thirds majority, and can in some cases bypass the filibuster. So acting responsibly should be easier in Washington than in Sacramento.

But the California precedent still has me rattled. Who would have thought that America’s largest state, a state whose economy is larger than that of all but a few nations, could so easily become a banana republic?

On the other hand, the problems that plague California politics apply at the national level too.

Are this guys thoughts always this muddled?
First he starts by claiming republicans have gone mad. Then he decry's the state California is in because it still requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Hunh?
And then he says it's a banana republic. He does know that California, regardless of who the governor currently is, is controlled by Democrats, does he not?

41 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:57:48am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

re: #9 LGoPs


You do realize that's about 53% of the population, right? How are you ever going to win an election by excluding 53% of the voters?

CORRECTION ,,, It's NOT 53% of "the population" . He garnered 53% of those that VOTED. Those that voted are only about 1/2 of those ELIGIBLE to vote.

Many did NOT vote this year (as well as in the past) due to apathy, somewhat caused by the choices offered

42 Obsidiandog  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:57:59am

Colin Powell is a Democrat. He endorsed the left wing Obama over the moderate McCain, exactly the type of Republican he says the party needs. After owing all his professional success to the patronage of Republican presidents he finally has revealed his true colors.

Actually he revealed his true colors when he let Scooter Llibby and the Bush White House twist in the wind when he knew his deputy at State Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame. This is an honorable guy? Thanks for your service...

43 Pvt Bin Jammin  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:10am

re: #13 livefreeor die

I don't know about other states but when we moved to PA 13 years ago and I tried to register as Independent, the woman told me that I would be listed as belonging to Lyndon Larouche's party. I explained that I wanted to be listed as "unaffiliated" but she said that that was not available. I'm not sure what was going on.

We call it non partisan here in California. Independent is, in fact, a party.

44 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:14am

re: #23 Walter L. Newton

I disagree. Obama's values are so different than mine that I cannot respect Powell for supporting them.
If you call Powell a republican, then the word no longer has any meaning.

45 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:25am

re: #39 Kenneth

The graph says the Dems have lost more support than the GOP has.

Kenneth ... proud to say I am in that number ... no more letters for me ...

46 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:31am

re: #7 redshirt

Yeah, let's throw out any real chance of challenging and beating Obama come 2012 by keeping out anyone that wants to change their vote.

47 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:53am

re: #32 Kenneth

Subtext to the video clip of Cheney that set up the interview: Powell lost the battle in infighting with Rumsfeld when Cheney supported Rumsfeld. When Powell left Bush's cabinet he was very embittered by the experience. History has shown, at least on how to fight the Iraq war, Rumsfeld was dead wrong.

Good background.

48 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #31 Desert Dog

He voted for Obama because of his race. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. But, why nobody calls him on that is curious. Afraid of being called racist?

If you watched the video, you would know that he was called on it & he denied race was why he voted for Obama.

49 Hengineer  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:58:58am

Powell is both right and wrong. The Republicans are doing themselves worse by skewing far right, but he is wrong in endorsing Obama either for his skin (which is not what Republicanism is about) or for his policies (and his policies were DEFINITELY not what Republicanism is about), and Powell should look at himself and truly wonder if he really is a Republican.

That being said, I don't identify with a party when it comes to voting, I identify myself as a slightly conservative, slightly libertarian individual: socially moderate, fiscally conservative.

50 astronmr20  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:59:55am

re: #34 Sharmuta

And in 2012, when some 0bama supporters realize he's not what they thought and they want something different, are you going to keep them out?!

...but what will be needed to be done to include them? If it's common-sense policy, then good.

51 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:02am

re: #45 JacksonTn

Kenneth ... proud to say I am in that number ... no more letters for me ...

How about an I or C? I wear both proudly myself.

52 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:29am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

re: #9 LGoPs


You do realize that's about 53% of the population, right? How are you ever going to win an election by excluding 53% of the voters?

Of course I do. But going Democrat-lite isn't going to get any of those people back when they can have the real McCoy.

53 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:33am

re: #39 Kenneth

The graph says the Dems have lost more support than the GOP has.

I didn't say otherwise.

What I think the graph shows is people aren't interested in more government spending. Republicans began losing support and losing elections when they thought they could be democrat-lite, and spend, spend, spend. During the convention, the dems said they'd be responsible with our money. I don't know why people believed them, but obviously the bloom is off that rose.

Dems spend, repubs spend. Where are those of us interested in fiscal restraint supposed to go?

54 kynna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:34am

When Colin Powell supported Obama for president over McCain, he was NOT doing so because McCain was some kind of right-wing maniac.

While I strongly disagree with much of what the GOP is doing right now, Colin Powell is not the man I'm going to listen to in terms of saving the party. I'd rather hear from Dick Cheney on that score. And I think others would, too.

Right now, Powell is just trying to keep his investment in Obama afloat after Cheney waxed his man the other night. Even if I agree with things he's saying, his motivation is suspect.

55 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:35am

re: #51 FurryOldGuyJeans

How about an I or C? I wear both proudly myself.

FOGJ ... yes, I will take the independent ...

56 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:00:50am

re: #48 Kenneth

If you watched the video, you would know that he was called on it & he denied race was why he voted for Obama.

Ya right, I believe that.......I am sure it was Obama's policies that made Powell vote for him.....BS

57 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:03am

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

AVANTI - have you seen this poll?

Yes, I posted it or similar ones showing the movement toward independents, but was down dinged. (Polls are worthless syndrome )

58 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:08am

re: #44 redshirt

I disagree. Obama's values are so different than mine that I cannot respect Powell for supporting them.
If you call Powell a republican, then the word no longer has any meaning.

Well, your right if you see the word as representing far right nut cases like Rush and Alex Jones and Glenn Beck and Hannity and so forth.

If anyone of them are you favorites people, than you are right. ANd it's that kind of republicans that are going to destroy the party.

Have it your way.

59 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:15am

re: #31 Desert Dog

He said in the interview that it wasn't about race, and said he laid out ten points that were swept aside by Rush. Did you listen to it?

Are you a mind reader? You can get inside Colin's head and listen to what he's thinking?

60 Dan G.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:16am

re: #51 FurryOldGuyJeans

NPA (No Party Affiliation) here in FL.

61 Last Mohican  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:31am

re: #35 HAL2010

Powell is the sort of man the GOP (in my humble, British opinion) needs to win elections. A centre-right guy who favours solutions over blind ideology. Under Reagan the GOP was the party of solutions, now its the party of no sayers and blind ideologues. The former won 49 states, the latter thinks Palin and Jindal are the GOP's best hope.

Powell was a widely popular figure in the USA after the first Gulf war, and many people were encouraging him to run for office. I think he would have won the election in a landslide if he had decided to run for the presidency in 1996, as he was thinking of doing. I know I would have voted for him.

62 HAL2010  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:33am

re: #30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hey HAL! I would guess that George Bush was also the most hated person to ever win an election.

I would guess that incumbents win pretty handily or are defeated.

Fair point. But still. The sitting President nearly lost to John Kerry.
I would perhaps argue that the whole Bush-Hitler arguments reached their zenith in 2006-2007.

63 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:35am

re: #44 redshirt

Ah, the No True Scotsman rule.

Yup, keep pushing that and prepare for 8 years of Obama.

64 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:01:42am

I don't agree with Charles at all. Anybody who could vote for Obama is on the other side. Powell forfeited all moral rights when he did so and is now a Democrat despite what he says. As for the GOP, they have totally lost their way, however they just ran the most liberal guy they could find and he was blown out of the water. So much for reaching across the aisle. For the GOP to come back strong they have to stick with the core principles that made them what they are. Powell and McCain are wishy washy politicos without any core values. Listen to Rush for the cores of what the GOP should be and we'll be back. Listen to McCain and Powell and you'll get more Obama's down the road.

65 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:03am

re: #20 Last Mohican

So let me understand you correctly. You are a Democrat, and not a Demo☭rat.

66 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:07am

re: #48 Kenneth

If you watched the video, you would know that he was called on it & he denied race was why he voted for Obama.

I watched it on TV earlier and I say to Mr. Powell that is a lie.

67 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:12am

re: #50 astronmr20

...but what will be needed to be done to include them? If it's common-sense policy, then good.

How about balancing the budget and cutting taxes. It's always worked before.

How about leaving people alone, and getting government out of our private lives? People LIKE that idea.

So simple, so crazy- it just might work.

68 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:34am

re: #39 Kenneth

The graph says the Dems have lost more support than the GOP has.

Over the past five months, and I can't help but wonder if it's an emotion-based thing. Note the 2008 spike, from the heady days of the Obama campaign.

69 Dan G.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:42am

re: #67 Sharmuta

You RINO!
/Big time.

70 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:02:55am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

re: #9 LGoPs

You do realize that's about 53% of the population, right? How are you ever going to win an election by excluding 53% of the voters?

* * *
No one is advocating "excluding 53% of the voters".

HOWEVER, No one is obligated to take the advice of a flip flopping attention getter like Colin Powell who was with Reagan when that was cool, then was with John McCain's campaign as an "advisor" before flippling in a backwards summersault over to candidate Obama's camp.

That's called being all over the spectrum for no apparent principled reason that I can see, except spite against individuals he didn't like. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but Powell's political instincts are those of a whore.

71 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:00am

re: #45 JacksonTn

Kenneth ... proud to say I am in that number ... no more letters for me ...

Same here, I've been registered as a independent for a long time.

72 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:20am

I think it's interesting that whenever ANY Republican comes out and advocates taking the party in a more moderate direction, people start yelling that he's a RINO, we don't need him, good riddance, etc. etc.

It's like watching a meltdown in slow motion.

Powell addresses the accusation that he voted for Obama because of his skin color in the video above, by the way. I agree with him that this accusation is an extremely cheap shot.

73 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:21am

re: #64 Ayatrollah

For the GOP to come back strong they have to stick with the core principles that made them what they are.

Name 'em. Different people have different lists.

74 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:36am

re: #60 Dan G.

NPA (No Party Affiliation) here in FL.

I never said I was registered as anything, especially since here in WA State both parties sued to virtually remove my ability to vote my conscience. I self-declare myself I and C.

75 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:38am

re: #61 Last Mohican

Powell was a widely popular figure in the USA after the first Gulf war, and many people were encouraging him to run for office. I think he would have won the election in a landslide if he had decided to run for the presidency in 1996, as he was thinking of doing. I know I would have voted for him.

Didn't Powell's wife talk him out of that?

76 YankeeBaseball  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:03:54am

Colin Powell is the Republican all the libs think we should be.
Exactly what Republican, Libertarian or Conservative position does Powell have?
NONE.
He agrees with Obama across the board.
Does not sound very independent to me.

77 Dan G.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:08am

re: #74 FurryOldGuyJeans

I see.

78 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:11am

re: #53 Sharmuta

Ok, those are good points. 5 months ago there were probably quite a few Independents who identified as Democrats, mostly out of the excitement of voting for Obama. Now the electorate is waking up to one hell of a hangover and re-evaluating their former enthusiasm. Hence the slipping numbers.

It would be useful to see the graphs for past post-election eras, for comparison. Is that sort of slippage normal? My guess is yes.

79 Dan G.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:27am

re: #77 Dan G.

Pun welcomed, but not intentional.

80 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:30am

re: #34 Sharmuta

I gladly welcome anyone back into the fold who realizes they were duped and want to correct their previous mistake.
Colin Powell is no such man now. He may one day declare Obama is not the man he thought he had voted for and regrets his support.
When that happens I will gladly shake his hand.
I don't hold grudges.

81 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:40am

re: #64 Ayatrollah

Ah, the No True Scotsman rule comes again!

82 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:04:40am

Of course the rub is - what does Powell mean by inclusive? Of course the problem for me is that I can't continue to make peace with the Christian right anymore. That faustian bargain has run its course and the Devil wants to paid up now.

83 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:05:01am

(For the record here, I'm against reading the "RINO's" out of the party.)

84 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:05:09am

re: #56 Desert Dog

I don't know whether to believe him or not, but somebody did call him on it, was my point.

85 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:05:29am

re: #76 YankeeBaseball

Colin Powell is the Republican all the libs think we should be.
Exactly what Republican, Libertarian or Conservative position does Powell have?
NONE.
He agrees with Obama across the board.
Does not sound very independent to me.

List all the "across the board" points that Powell agrees on. Links to those point please.

86 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:05:51am

Someone that I used to be acquainted with on a professional basis was involved at the highest level during Gulf War 1. He had zero respect for Colin Powell.

87 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #52 LGoPs


But going Democrat-lite isn't going to get any of those people back when they can have the real McCoy.

I think it's not about going Democrat lite but I think less dogma and more practical solutions would be very helpful.

88 Dan G.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #86 Son of the Black Dog

And...

89 Opilio  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:06:57am

re: #41 sattv4u2

CORRECTION ,,, It's NOT 53% of "the population" . He garnered 53% of those that VOTED. Those that voted are only about 1/2 of those ELIGIBLE to vote.

Many did NOT vote this year (as well as in the past) due to apathy, somewhat caused by the choices offered

Turnout in 2008 was 61%, but your point stands.

90 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:09am

re: #22 redshirt

Powell himself says he is still a republican.
I am saying we are better off without him.
I believe Charles thinks we are better off with him.

I'm pretty sure Charles just said he is an independent, not beholden to either party.

91 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:14am

re: #72 Charles

Point of Information: ISTR the GOP going through the same process during the Dhimmi Carter years.

92 Hengineer  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:15am

re: #86 Son of the Black Dog

Someone that I used to be acquainted with on a professional basis was involved at the highest level during Gulf War 1. He had zero respect for Colin Powell.

Did he have the opinion that Colin Powell was just like Gen. Wesley Clark? Nothin' but a staff officer?

93 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:15am

73 - Tune into Rush you'll hear them every day. Haven't changed in 20 years since I first hear him.

94 Hengineer  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:35am

re: #92 Hengineer

Did he have the opinion that Colin Powell was just like Gen. Wesley Clark? Nothin' but a staff officer?

A paper pusher?

95 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:38am

re: #64 Ayatrollah

Anybody who could vote for Obama is on the other side.

That's pretty absolutist. I voted for Clinton the first time- am I on the other side, or does it mean I was able to grow politically to find myself on the right 4 years later? (Actually- it was within 2 years.) There are many 0bama voters who will have the same rude awakening, and you dismiss them simply because they didn't vote the way you wanted when you wanted.

BTW, folks- McCain didn't lose because he's moderate. He lost because with many republicans, he'd burned his bridges years earlier, and many who were willing to give him a chance felt betrayed by his vote on the pork bill before the election. That vote did him in for good. He couldn't recover after that. Again- it was fiscal republicans that are sick of spending who didn't vote for McCain.

96 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:07:50am

re: #28 FurryOldGuyJeans

Is it really too late to get back to some core values and principles such as fiscal conservatism and smaller government? Or is an ideological purity purge all we have as the core now?

* * * *
As a lifetime military man, Colin Powell is used to giving orders and asking for more stuff.

He reminds me of General McLelland the head of the Union Army during the Civil War, whom President Abraham Lincoln fired.

General McLelland also tried to run for President and thought he could do better than President Lincoln.

97 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:08:11am

re: #31 Desert Dog

You cannot boil it down to race. General Powell never gave race as a reason for his vote, and you simply cannot assume that. That is an assumption on your part.

I'm a white Democrat who voted for the white Republican candidate. I did not do so because of race. (I would have walked over broken glass to vote for Thomas Sowell, for example.) I am telling you that, and I have previously given various reasons for why I voted for Senator McCain. Are you going to assume that I did so because of race? If not, then you are biased to do so to General Powell and not to me.

98 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:08:11am

re: #76 YankeeBaseball

Colin Powell is the Republican all the libs think we should be.
Exactly what Republican, Libertarian or Conservative position does Powell have?
NONE.
He agrees with Obama across the board.
Does not sound very independent to me.

It seems to me that Powells advice to the Republicans is that in order to defeat the Democrats , become more like them.
In my opnion if the Republicans start having Jefferson/Jackson dinners, Powell will still support BHO next go around.
He has greatly damaged his credibility imo.

99 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:08:18am

re: #93 Ayatrollah

73 - Tune into Rush you'll hear them every day. Haven't changed in 20 years since I first hear him.

Rush is a jerk. He's the public face of what's wrong with the Republican party.

100 NY Nana  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:08:25am

In NY State, in order to vote in the primaries, you must be registered in a party. We were indies for years, as we left the Demonrats about 3 weeks or months into Jimmy the Jew hater's term. We became Republicans in order to vote for G.W Bush when he ran in 2000, and will stay Republicans.

If so many of my fellow Jews had not voted Demonrat by habit, rather than by reasoning? We would have McCain as President...not my favorite, but he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

This is, without a doubt, the very worst President and Cabinet in my entire life. I fear more for our kids and grandkids than I can adequately express. It will take a decade or more to undo the damage. My first vote was for JFK, as you had to be 21 to vote when he ran. I had always dated life from the 22nd of Nov., 1962. I was pregnant with our oldest, and my husband was in the Army, stationed at the now-defunct Boston Army base...and my parents ZT"L, were thrilled, as I am originally from Boston.

The date changed horrifically on the 11th of September, 2001.

President Bush was there for us. That is but one of the reasons I will remain a Republican.

Obama is there for only one individual. Himself. IMHO, if he was on a sinking boat? He would grab the first(and possibly only) life jacket.

101 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:08:39am

re: #59 Thanos

He said in the interview that it wasn't about race, and said he laid out ten points that were swept aside by Rush. Did you listen to it?

Are you a mind reader? You can get inside Colin's head and listen to what he's thinking?

So, you are telling me that Colin Powell voted for Obama for reasons other than his race? The fact that Barack Obama is an African American just as Colin Powell is had nothing to do with his decision? Perhaps he did base his vote on other factors, but I am submitting that the main reason was his race....otherwise, McCain would have offered Powell much of what he has claimed to believe in for many years. Moderation, actual bipartisanship, a strong military.....McCain should have been Powell's dream candidate. But, instead he voted for a person holding political views very, very far from his own.

102 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:10am

re: #72 Charles

I agree with him that this accusation is an extremely cheap shot.

If true (that Powell did NOT vote for Obama due to race) it is a disgusting shot. However I wonder what other reasons there are. Powell still calls himself a Republican. Being so, what policies did he find admirable in Obama and not McCain. If choosing Obama why not Hillary, whose policies were more moderate than Obamas and she had more experience

103 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:22am

The bigger issue for the GOP is the fact that young people don't want to vote for a party that is:

* anti-choice for women
* appears to be anti-gay
* pro-creationist

Bottom line is the Christian right does seem to control the party levers and is engaging in an idealogical purification. While it makes them feel good, they are ensuring the GOP to a certain death.

104 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:40am

There are other demographics just as strong that indicate the Republicans have become the incredible shrinking party. I laid out some of them here, and these particular demographics tell me that the future does not look bright for Social Conservatives.

So all those SoCons who are quickly shucking coats for fiscal conservatism better beware, you are being watched and will catch the smackdown for every backwards idea you try to hysterically pimp under guise of fiscal conservatism.

My conservative Manifesto:

I believe in liberty, and refuse to be a marching moron meat puppet for the culture wars. If that means I get called RINO, so be it.

105 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:40am

re: #78 Kenneth

Ok, those are good points. 5 months ago there were probably quite a few Independents who identified as Democrats, mostly out of the excitement of voting for Obama. Now the electorate is waking up to one hell of a hangover and re-evaluating their former enthusiasm. Hence the slipping numbers.

It would be useful to see the graphs for past post-election eras, for comparison. Is that sort of slippage normal? My guess is yes.

Since we are on the subject of polling and Independents, here's what Gallup said this month. It looks like the indie's are the ones that the GOP needs to swing.

"Right now, 92% of Democrats and 66% of independents approve of the job Obama is doing; only 30% of Republicans approve. So independents clearly feel positively about Obama's performance in office. But not being anchored to him along party lines, they are much more willing to consider their options in 2012."

106 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:41am

re: #90 SixDegrees

We should all be beholden to our principles, not to any one party.

107 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:44am

Nobody seems to address the fact that by voting for Obama, Powell became a Democrat. How do you explain that away?

108 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:49am

re: #72 Charles

I think it's interesting that whenever ANY Republican comes out and advocates taking the party in a more moderate direction, people start yelling that he's a RINO, we don't need him, good riddance, etc. etc.

It's like watching a meltdown in slow motion.

Powell addresses the accusation that he voted for Obama because of his skin color in the video above, by the way. I agree with him that this accusation is an extremely cheap shot.

The invocation of the No True Scotman rule is just so amazing because of the sheer volume.

And I used to be one of the proponents of applying it myself.

109 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:09:56am

re: #93 Ayatrollah

73 - Tune into Rush you'll hear them every day. Haven't changed in 20 years since I first hear him.


Since he's been such a rock for 20 years, why has the Party gone up and down?

110 Opilio  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:10:15am

re: #95 Sharmuta

Again- it was fiscal republicans that are sick of spending who didn't vote for McCain.

How's that working out for them?

//rhetorical

111 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:10:27am

re: #70 alegrias

That's called being all over the spectrum for no apparent principled reason that I can see, except spite against individuals he didn't like.


He thought Obama was the better candidate and voted for the better candidate out of principal that goes beyond partisan loyalties. Blindy voting the party ticket is not a matter of morality, it's blind obedience.
I think it's also interesting to note the difference in tone between Powell and his detractors. Powell calmly and rationally states his views while his opponents call him names and demand apologies and purges.

112 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:10:45am

re: #107 Ayatrollah

Nobody seems to address the fact that by voting for Obama, Powell became a Democrat. How do you explain that away?

One's party is determined by one's registration, not by a vote. That wouldn't work since we have secret ballots.

113 Ojoe  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:11:06am

If you are leaning independent check out the Modern Whig Party.

IMHO the D and R are ternimal.

BBL

114 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:11:08am

re: #52 LGoPs

Of course I do. But going Democrat-lite isn't going to get any of those people back when they can have the real McCoy.

WE ALREADY WENT DEM-LITE!

What do you think all the republican spending in Congress for 8 years has gotten us? I'll tell you- less seats in Congress and a dem in the WH.

Republicans lose when fiscal responsibility takes a back seat.

And if you folks can't admit we spent 8 years punting on fiscal issues, you are the ones who need to wake up, not Colin Powell.

115 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:12:16am

Considering most Americans spending/saving habits, I'm not sure fiscal responsibility is a winning issue either. Basically America has made a hard turn to the left and if the GOP wants to get back into power they have to move to the left.

116 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:12:22am

re: #99 Walter L. Newton

So you've listened to him on a regular basis and come to this conclusion on your own or you just want to believe it because its easy?

117 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:12:36am

re: #107 Ayatrollah

He didn't BECOME a Democrat, he just voted for one.

Geez, quit throwing the No True Scotsman rule around like you know what the man believes deep within his heart.

118 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:12:53am

re: #109 wrenchwench

Because the GOP rarely listens to him.

119 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:04am

re: #107 Ayatrollah

Nobody seems to address the fact that by voting for Obama, Powell became a Democrat. How do you explain that away?

Er, because you party affiliation is dependent on your registration, not by who you vote for.

120 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:11am

re: #111 Killgore Trout

He thought Obama was the better candidate and voted for the better candidate out of principal that goes beyond partisan loyalties. Blindy voting the party ticket is not a matter of morality, it's blind obedience.
I think it's also interesting to note the difference in tone between Powell and his detractors. Powell calmly and rationally states his views while his opponents call him names and demand apologies and purges.

Then why pray tell was Powell a McCain advisor before he flipped?

121 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:17am

re: #114 Sharmuta

And if you folks can't admit we spent 8 years punting on fiscal issues, you are the ones who need to wake up, not Colin Powell.

So by backing Obama Powell is calling for fiscal restraint, long a usual Republican (conservative0 principle of governance?

122 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:23am

re: #110 Opilio

How's that working out for them?

//rhetorical

Fisc-cons are sick of being taken for granted. When fisc-cons are ignored, the GOP loses.

123 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:24am

I can't argue at all with Powell's first statements, he's right. He's got other stuff to answer for, but he's right on this. While we're still mad at him for going for O, will we discount everything else he says?

124 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:24am

re: #101 Desert Dog

I'm not telling you anything other than you can't know another human being's motives with certainty, you might want to read his ten points instead of doing a knee-jerk Karnak act.

125 Ojoe  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:40am

re: #109 wrenchwench

Because a radio show is a surface thing.

126 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:42am

I see a lot of people absolutely confused as to why Powell endorsed Obama. You can easily google and read his explanation. It doesn't have to be a mystery.

127 Dianna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:42am

re: #114 Sharmuta

An excellent point, made very well.

128 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:52am

re: #114 Sharmuta

WE ALREADY WENT DEM-LITE!

What do you think all the republican spending in Congress for 8 years has gotten us? I'll tell you- less seats in Congress and a dem in the WH.

Republicans lose when fiscal responsibility takes a back seat.

And if you folks can't admit we spent 8 years punting on fiscal issues, you are the ones who need to wake up, not Colin Powell.

Yes, we punted bad....but, look what is happening now. What Obama is doing is a recipe for disaster. Once his policies start melting down an already weakened economy, we will see how the independents swing. Will Obama hold them under his spell when inflation hits, when the job loses increase, when the USA starts sliding down the drain? God, I hope not.

129 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:13:54am

re: #105 avanti

Interesting. Every presidential election is won by the party that can attract the middle while holding their base. Obama did that in 2008. McCain was never the darling of the GOP base, so he went with a V-P choice to shore up his base. Unfortunately, they couldn't get enough of the middle.

130 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:04am

re: #114 Sharmuta

WE ALREADY WENT DEM-LITE!

What do you think all the republican spending in Congress for 8 years has gotten us? I'll tell you- less seats in Congress and a dem in the WH.

Republicans lose when fiscal responsibility takes a back seat.

And if you folks can't admit we spent 8 years punting on fiscal issues, you are the ones who need to wake up, not Colin Powell.

In wartime, you're supposed to punt on fiscal issues. Why? BECAUSE YOUR NUMBER 1 OBJECTIVE IS TO WIN THAT WAR!
That said, where Bush and the GOP Congress frakked up was spending like Drunken Sailors on domestic programs...and I apologize to the Drunken Sailors.

131 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:11am

re: #42 Obsidiandog

Colin Powell is a Democrat. He endorsed the left wing Obama over the moderate McCain, exactly the type of Republican he says the party needs. After owing all his professional success to the patronage of Republican presidents he finally has revealed his true colors.

Actually he revealed his true colors when he let Scooter Llibby and the Bush White House twist in the wind when he knew his deputy at State Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame. This is an honorable guy? Thanks for your service...

* * * *
Powell was more concerned about what CNN would say if Powell crushed Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards as they skeddaddled back to Baghdad from Kuwait, than about saving innocent Iraqis from 12 more years of repression and slaughter by Saddam Hussein.

Letting Hussein WIN the 1991 Gulf War, was Powell's great legacy. SPIT.
Powell let me and innocent Iraqis and Kurds and Kuwaitis down in 1991 big time.

Powell cost the USA 12 more years of fighting and over-flights over Iraq, at the cost of lives and treasure and BLOOD.

132 Ojoe  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:13am

Yes I said BBL ...

133 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:23am

I did listen to Rush Limbaugh back in the early 1990s - he seemed to make sense back then. Now he's just a jerk, plain and simple. He's even gone full blown creationist on us.

134 Earick  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:29am

"Republican Party needs to reach out and be more inclusive"

I could not disagree more!
The GOP needs to emphasize basic conservative policies. Clearly state what conservatism is and let the people come to us.
What is the sense of trying to be democrat light? Why have a 'big tent' if it means we don't stand for our principles.

Smaller federal government!
Lower taxes!
Individual responsibility!

Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Damn sure worked for Reagan!

135 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:45am

re: #90 SixDegrees

I hear you, but I am saying that I think Charles thinks the republican party is better off with Powell in it. Not saying Charles endorses him.

Listen everyone. All I am saying is that we have our best chance of winning elections again by running true conservatives, not finding the leftmost republican we can find. I don't care if you are black, gay, jewish or have a rino horn. If you believe in small government, fiscal and personal responsibility, and the United States Constitution, you are welcome in the party.
Barack Obama believes in none of those things listed, in my opinion.

Question: What happens to a great nation when more than 50% of the voting population wants a socialist nanny state to take care of them, and will take the money from the 47% opposition to pay for it?

136 Dianna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:55am

re: #123 BigPapa

Earlier this week, Powell made some remark about how the people want government spending.

Anything further from my personal principles, I cannot imagine.

137 Steffan  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:14:55am

104,366 Reasons the U.S. Never Need Apologize to Europe

138 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:03am

re: #39 Kenneth

The graph says the Dems have lost more support than the GOP has.

Not really. It doesn't track who is moving where. It's a series of snapshots, not even of the same individuals. There's no way to tell where the growing number of independents are coming from.

The longer term trend clearly shows a loss of those self-identifying as Republicans, however, while those self-identifying as democrats has remained roughly constant; independents, over the same period, have increases substantially. Again, this doesn't say where the independents are coming from. It does, however, indicate a mid-term decline in Republican traction.

In order to track the actual motion of respondents, the same people would have to be polled each time, or at least data on respondent's former positions would have to be collected.

139 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:05am

re: #105 avanti

Next time you post a poll result try posting a link to the poll itself as well. You have a VERY bad habit of just regurgitating snippets to support your positions.

140 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:07am

re: #107 Ayatrollah

If he runs for Senate in a NE state as a Republican I will send him a campaign contribution, why wouldn't you?

141 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:19am

re: #120 opnion

Then why pray tell was Powell a McCain advisor before he flipped?


I have no idea but you can probably find out by googling.

142 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:28am

re: #116 Ayatrollah

So you've listened to him on a regular basis and come to this conclusion on your own or you just want to believe it because its easy?

Because I listen to him on a regular basis, and have for most of his career.

The other day, in regards to the recent report on the fossil lemur monkey and who it speaks to evolution, he dismissed all the science in one sentence, by calling it bullshit.

This is a man who has no critical thinking skills.

143 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:32am

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

Bullsht. You pick sides and vote for what you believe in.

144 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:45am

re: #131 alegrias

Didn't George H. W. Bush have something to do with that?

145 YankeeBaseball  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:52am

re: #85 Walter L. Newton

"We need more than one political party in this country. I may not agree with a lot of the Republicans ideas, but they need to be here for balance."
Colin Powell on CNN

146 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:15:56am

re: #121 sattv4u2

Did you watch the dem convention? They stole all of the fiscal talking points. I, of course, didn't believe them, but after 8 years of republicans not talking about it at all, can you blame some people for thinking they'd give the dems a chance? Many of these folks probably pay less attention to daily politics than you and I, so they were easily duped on this matter. My guess is they're wide awake now. We should take this opportunity to get back to our fiscal principles.

147 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:16:13am

re: #126 Killgore Trout

I see a lot of people absolutely confused as to why Powell endorsed Obama. You can easily google and read his explanation. It doesn't have to be a mystery.

Right, he would never rationalize his reasons, never.

148 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:16:28am

re: #134 Earick

Damn straight!

149 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:06am

re: #92 Hengineer

Did he have the opinion that Colin Powell was just like Gen. Wesley Clark? Nothin' but a staff officer?

His opinion was that Powell was too concerned with political implications and public image and allowed military and strategic considerations take a back seat. He cited several instances, not just the decision to stop the war after 100 hours. I had made the mistake of remarking how much I admired Gen. Powell.

150 Spare O'Lake  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:13am

If I am reading those graphs correctly, the Dems have lost 50% more of their electoral support in the past 5 months than have the GOP.
Whassup with that?

151 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:23am

re: #147 opnion

Ok, then it will remain a permanent mystery to you.

152 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:26am

re: #124 Thanos

I'm not telling you anything other than you can't know another human being's motives with certainty, you might want to read his ten points instead of doing a knee-jerk Karnak act.

Knee-Jerk Karnak act? Wow.....

nope, logical conclusion

153 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:30am

re: #72 Charles

I think it's interesting that whenever ANY Republican comes out and advocates taking the party in a more moderate direction, people start yelling that he's a RINO, we don't need him, good riddance, etc. etc.

It's like watching a meltdown in slow motion.

Powell addresses the accusation that he voted for Obama because of his skin color in the video above, by the way. I agree with him that this accusation is an extremely cheap shot.

* * * * *
Powell is not ANY Republican, but a former presidential wannabe.

Powell did not have the courage to put himself out there and test his hypothesis.

Powell's abandoning the McCain campaign where he was advertised as a trusted advisor tells me all I need to know about valuable Powell's advice is to his own FRIEND, McCain: Drop dead.

154 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:37am

re: #113 Ojoe

If you are leaning independent check out the Modern Whig Party.

IMHO the D and R are ternimal.

BBL

I go with NONE or UNAFFILIATED. I don't want ANY politician to assume they have my vote wrapped up simply because they have a letter after their name. They have to WORK for my vote and support, before the election AND after.

155 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:38am

re: #131 alegrias

It wasn't Powell's decision, it was Bush 41's.

156 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:42am

re: #142 Walter L. Newton

I agree with you on that. Taking religion out of the mix, what don't you agree with Rush on?

157 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:17:47am

re: #130 Macker

In wartime, you're supposed to punt on fiscal issues. Why? BECAUSE YOUR NUMBER 1 OBJECTIVE IS TO WIN THAT WAR!
That said, where Bush and the GOP Congress frakked up was spending like Drunken Sailors on domestic programs...and I apologize to the Drunken Sailors.

I agree. If we were overspending on just the military, people could accept that.

The problem, as you stated, is it wasn't just the war spending.

158 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:05am

re: #146 Sharmuta

They stole all of the fiscal talking points. I, of course, didn't believe them, But Powell did !?!?!?!

159 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #151 Killgore Trout

Ok, then it will remain a permanent mystery to you.

But not to you, cause you know.

160 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:12am

re: #94 Hengineer

A paper pusher?

At base level - a politician.

161 ducktrapper  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:23am

Well, call me crazy, but the guy not only voted for the opposition but as reputed, high profile Republican, he came out and publicly endorsed the Democrat's candidate. Whether he is right or wrong about GOP inclusivity or exclusivity, he has no credibility as a Republican leader.

162 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:25am

re: #155 Thanos

It wasn't Powell's decision, it was Bush 41's.

I have to wonder what Stormin' Norman's opinion would have been....

163 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:30am

re: #136 Dianna

He may have ideas that are far from your own principles, as is with me. However, he may have ideas that align with your (or my own) principles. His statements in the link align with my own. That doesn't mean I agree with all he stands for, in the least.

164 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:48am

re: #150 Spare O'Lake

If I am reading those graphs correctly, the Dems have lost 50% more of their electoral support in the past 5 months than have the GOP.
Whassup with that?

Check the other graph first. The Dem's spiked during the election. Probably a bunch of Independents registered D to vote in the primaries, then dropped back to their real registration.

165 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:18:56am

re: #131 alegrias

re: #155 Thanos

It wasn't Powell's decision, it was Bush 41's.

Actually , it was the UN's

166 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:19:01am

re: #158 sattv4u2


They stole all of the fiscal talking points. I, of course, didn't believe them, But Powell did !?!?!?!

I have no idea. I'm not talking about Powell when I say that. I'm talking about 10 million other people.

167 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:19:10am

re: #153 alegrias

Powell did not have the courage to put himself out there and test his hypothesis.

I think the reason he never showed any interest in running is that his wife has mental problems and his first responsibility is to her.

168 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:19:21am

re: #138 SixDegrees

Not really. It doesn't track who is moving where. It's a series of snapshots, not even of the same individuals. There's no way to tell where the growing number of independents are coming from.

The longer term trend clearly shows a loss of those self-identifying as Republicans, however, while those self-identifying as democrats has remained roughly constant; independents, over the same period, have increases substantially. Again, this doesn't say where the independents are coming from. It does, however, indicate a mid-term decline in Republican traction.

In order to track the actual motion of respondents, the same people would have to be polled each time, or at least data on respondent's former positions would have to be collected.

You are exactly right. If you look at age demographics you can clearly see a coming great influx of D's and a dieing demographic of aging R's.

169 debutaunt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:19:32am

re: #18 Killgore Trout

The politicians in California refuse to stop spending tax money that isn't even there.

170 YankeeBaseball  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:01am

re: #99 Walter L. Newton

My biggest problem with Limbaugh and the rest of the cult of radio personalities.
It has made conservatism in a great business plan, but not a way to run the country.
Cause none of them will step up and lead.
If they applied what the preach they would be unelectable.

171 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:03am

re: #166 Sharmuta

I have no idea. I'm not talking about Powell when I say that. I'm talking about 10 million other people.

How many of those 10 million were influenced by Powells endorsement !?!?!

172 ducktrapper  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:16am

re: #169 debutaunt

The politicians in California refuse to stop spending tax money that isn't even there.


or theirs for that matter.

173 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:18am

re: #156 Ayatrollah

I agree with you on that. Taking religion out of the mix, what don't you agree with Rush on?

Most everything involving social issues that he snorts on about. And what do you mean about religion? I never mentioned religion, I mentioned science, evolution, you seem to be confusing the two. I'm an atheist, I don't even consider religion pro or con, unless it starts stomping on my rights as an American.

My point made.

174 kynna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:28am

re: #109 wrenchwench

Since he's been such a rock for 20 years, why has the Party gone up and down?

Maybe because he isn't the evil, all-powerful, that everyone paints him as.

He's firm on fiscal restraint. I don't agree with his lifestyle or his social views in several areas, but he agrees with me on that one biggie.

175 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:31am

re: #129 Kenneth

Interesting. Every presidential election is won by the party that can attract the middle while holding their base. Obama did that in 2008. McCain was never the darling of the GOP base, so he went with a V-P choice to shore up his base. Unfortunately, they couldn't get enough of the middle.

I could not have made a better of summary of how I feel the election went down then you just did.

176 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:40am

Powell isn't a Republican and I am really tired of the charades. Then again, neither am I, but at least I don't proclaim myself to be one thing and act in contradiction to my "supposed" beliefs. Powell has been wrong in numerous ways and about numerous things. It's not my part to dissect each and every flawed decision, however in my book the man carries little credence. His sudden resurgence is courtesy the media with the intent of dismantling the Republican party.

Like the "Framer's" I am highly skeptical of the party system which seems to be predicated on the interests of the party rather than the concerns of the country. As a nation we are facing tremendous pressures on a variety of fronts and the inability of our "leaders" to overcome the parties' interests will be our undoing.

177 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:45am

re: #161 ducktrapper

Totally agree with you.

178 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:52am

re: #144 wrenchwench

Didn't George H. W. Bush have something to do with that?

He did, along with a number of ME nations that didn't want us too dominant in the area. Saudi Arabia, for one IIRC.

179 legalpad  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:54am

I'm not real sure on exactly how "being 'inclusive'" manifests itself. Sometimes not being "divisive" really means to silence certain viewpoints. Powell talks about people he doen't agree with being "divisive" all the time.

180 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:57am

Those of you tossing RINO around - saying that has little impact, because it is a meme. Memes are "preaching to the choir" tools that are essentially meaningless. I roll my eyes at this phrase, because I am not sure what the heck a Republican is - it used to be fiscally conservative, but it is certainly not that any more. In essence, the party itself is not Republican if one uses a historical measure of any kind.

I am a Democrat, but I don't support a lot of the planks in their agenda. I do support some planks in the Republican agenda, but by no means all. I would be an Indie, but the guy at the MVA talked me out of that (wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries).

I don't think either party has the backbone or agenda that a good party should have. At heart, they both waste money and spend it like it's water. They both pay lip service to various ridiculous (imho) issues that are none of their damn business. They both pull at the heartstrings and play off the general public's ignorance instead of educating the public. They both lower themselves to the lowest common demoninator to get votes. They both play power games and cause trouble for the citizens they represent.

The Republicans, as Charles has pointed out, are embracing things that I, as a moderate on many issues and a radical on a few social issues, cannot embrace.

The Democrats are fiscally insane.

The Republicans, instead of countering the fiscal insanity of the Dems, have continued to spend and boondoggle and earmark and have contributed their own insanity. This is a huge issue for me, and I am appalled that there is in essence no sane party on this issue.

181 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:58am

re: #156 Ayatrollah

I agree with you on that. Taking religion out of the mix, what don't you agree with Rush on?

By the way, I'm out of here in about 10 minutes, so, you'll have to come back if you want to have some more fun discussing this with me.

182 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:20:59am

This is why I questions why Powell voted Obama ...

if my family who have been dems forever ... mainly center right dems ... could not bring ourselves to vote for Obama because he represented imo the far far left wing of the party ... how could Powell who has identified with republicans most of the time ... suddenly vote for someone who is so far left? ... I am not throwing out the race card ... the man addressed it on television already ... I am just wondering ... why he in this election not only crossed the aisle but went so far left with his vote ...

/of course, I am a bitter bible clinging southern racists! so I guess Harold Ford should give all our campaign money back ...

183 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:21:06am

re: #69 Dan G.

You RINO!
/Big time.

I need a new button to replace my elephant button- one of a RINO.

184 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:21:25am

re: #166 Sharmuta

Got change for 10 Million?

185 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:08am

re: #162 Macker

I have to wonder what Stormin' Norman's opinion would have been....

Ever notice the man is a true soldier? Keeps his mouth shut about politics and just gets the job done.

186 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:09am

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

187 IslandLibertarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:15am

Colin Powell said nothing through the whole Valerie Plaime / Scooter Libbey drama.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama.
Colin Powell says he's a Republican.
I think that is a contradiction......BUT
He can call himself whatever he wants.

I'm a libertarian, but I have voted Republican since Carter.
Third parties have not been viable.
If you want the Republican party to survive, GET INVOLVED!

188 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:31am

A real big problem for the Republican party is the gaggle of jerk-radio hosts - Rush, Hannity, Levin, Medved, Savage. All of them push religion and are very hostile in their style. I know the base loves them and that's why they continue to get their ratings - but it's great fodder for the Democrats.

189 USCMSNE  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:36am

re: #114 Sharmuta

WE ALREADY WENT DEM-LITE!

You can't out-democrat a democrat.

190 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:22:53am

For our troops

Until Then
[Link: adserv.honoluluadvertiser.com...]

Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep

Youtube Video
191 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:01am

re: #176 Bubbaman

No True Scotsman rule triumphant here today.

192 redshirt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:18am

re: #186 Charles

Um, are you saying you think Biden was a more intelligent choice?

193 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:30am

I still don't know where I read this, but it bears repeating in this context: Carrying the moderates is not the same thing as being a moderate.

194 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:37am

re: #108 FurryOldGuyJeans

The invocation of the No True Scotman rule is just so amazing because of the sheer volume.

And I used to be one of the proponents of applying it myself.

That's one of the huge cool things about LGF - it's an education! Not only am I better informed - I like to think I've amped up my ability to think logically. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is just one that I used to be guilty of myself.

195 Dianna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:55am

re: #163 BigPapa

He may have ideas that are far from your own principles, as is with me. However, he may have ideas that align with your (or my own) principles. His statements in the link align with my own. That doesn't mean I agree with all he stands for, in the least.

Quite right.

196 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:59am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

Charles ... I agree on those points ... I do not think Palin (although I respect her) was ready nor were Obama or Biden ... sad really ....

197 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:59am

re: #61 Last Mohican

Powell was a widely popular figure in the USA after the first Gulf war, and many people were encouraging him to run for office. I think he would have won the election in a landslide if he had decided to run for the presidency in 1996, as he was thinking of doing. I know I would have voted for him.

* * * *
But you voted for Hillary Clinton not Powell's candidate, Obama ~?

I hear Secretary of State Clinton is meeting with the UN Security Council today, and will sponsor a really strong letter to North Korea about their nuclear detonation program.

198 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:23:59am

re: #139 FurryOldGuyJeans

Next time you post a poll result try posting a link to the poll itself as well. You have a VERY bad habit of just regurgitating snippets to support your positions.

What, you don't trust me. :)

Poll.

199 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:06am

re: #138 SixDegrees

Well, theoretically you could argue that people are switching from Democrat to Republican or visa-versa, but that is a stretch. It is far more likely that people who identified as one party or the other are moving to Independent.

200 Spare O'Lake  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:06am

Powell may be correct about the present need for the GOP to be more inclusive, but his conduct during the election campaign showed him to be a traitor and a backstabber.
With that track record where is his political credibility?

201 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:07am

re: #189 USCMSNE

You can't out-democrat a democrat.

But boy, have "compassionate conservatives" sure tried. Why- it was so successful, that the democrats are now in control of Congress.

202 debutaunt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:16am

re: #21 HAL2010

Watching the graph it seems the number of people who call themselves republicans began to drop after 2004, which I'm guessing means after the election.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Bush won the election with the smallest every margin for a sitting President.

Anyone know if this is correct?

The current climate in the GOP reminds me in many ways in which the conservative party found itself in after 1997, following the election of New Labour. Those Tory MP's who didn't loose their seats were the ones who were from safe constituencies, and the result was an inward-looking, ideological party, who became far more right wing than it even was under perhaps Margret Thatcher. It was not until 2005, and the election of David Cameron that the party began to modernize, after three election defeats. After many years searching for the party's soul, the conservatives will most likely win the next general election, following a modernization project that Cameron began the second he was elected party leader.

If anyone is interested I could write about some of their policies later on.

(Disclosure: I am a member of the party, and have been since 2005)

Kennedy Nixon was rather close.

203 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:17am

re: #152 Desert Dog

It's not logical to assume you know someone's motives when they specifically state ones that are counter to your assumption.

Again, you can't read his mind. You don't know, and if you are making assumptions based on skin color that doesn't make Colin the racist.

204 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:47am

re: #192 redshirt

Oh, for Pete's sake! Arguing absolutists points like this is logically fallacious.

205 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:24:47am

re: #73 wrenchwench

Name 'em. Different people have different lists.

Here are mine. At least, these are core Conservative values, which is what motivates me, whereas party values don't move me much. It's a short list:

1. Small government that stays the hell out of my business and everyone else's.

That's it. From this, I expect the following results to flow:

1. Fiscal restraint. See 1, above.

Note that the values espoused by the religious right - bans on abortion, bans on gay marriage, teaching of one particular religion in public schools and the like - are fundamentally at odds with my list, and with Conservatism as a whole. They are attempts to impose one particular set of beliefs on the citizenry through the power of the state, and have no place on any Conservative agenda.

206 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:15am

re: #198 avanti

What, you don't trust me. :)

Poll.

No.

207 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:28am

re: #175 avanti

Thanks, but it is kind of obvious. The exit polls support that interpretation.

208 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:29am

re: #63 FurryOldGuyJeans

Do you have anything else to say?

209 USCMSNE  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:32am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. [...]

Yet somehow he was comfortable with Obama's experience? Confident enough to endorse him?

210 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:49am

re: #192 redshirt

Um, are you saying you think Biden was a more intelligent choice?

I'm pretty sure I didn't write that.

But with Obama, the issue of the vice president is less important, because he's young and in good health -- McCain is neither.

211 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:25:51am

re: #171 sattv4u2

How many of those 10 million were influenced by Powells endorsement !?!?!

If there were a lot of them that were influenced by his endorsement maybe we need him in the party rather than tarred and feathered and run out of the ever shrinking village.

212 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:26:05am

re: #188 ArrowSmith

I wouldn't put Medved in the same group as Levin or Savage, kings of rant. He's not hostile. Levin is rarely interesting or thought invoking, and he's downright predictable.

213 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:26:43am

re: #135 redshirt

I hear you, but I am saying that I think Charles thinks the republican party is better off with Powell in it. Not saying Charles endorses him.

Listen everyone. All I am saying is that we have our best chance of winning elections again by running true conservatives, not finding the leftmost republican we can find. I don't care if you are black, gay, jewish or have a rino horn. If you believe in small government, fiscal and personal responsibility, and the United States Constitution, you are welcome in the party.
Barack Obama believes in none of those things listed, in my opinion.

Question: What happens to a great nation when more than 50% of the voting population wants a socialist nanny state to take care of them, and will take the money from the 47% opposition to pay for it?

I would agree with your short list. I don't see how Powell wouldn't agree with it, though.

214 Earick  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:27:12am

re: #170 YankeeBaseball

"My biggest problem with Limbaugh and the rest of the cult of radio personalities.
It has made conservatism in a great business plan, but not a way to run the country.
Cause none of them will step up and lead.
If they applied what the preach they would be unelectable."

Yep! I spent my youth growing up in California listening to people say the same thing about that crazy actor who had a Saturday radio show.
Then, damn, he ran for governor....AND WON!
Then that dumb radio/actor ran for President....AND WON!

Yep! They are all 'unelectable'! lmao!

215 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:27:15am

re: #208 Ayatrollah

Do you have anything else to say?

No, you've said it all.

216 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:27:30am

re: #212 BigPapa

I wouldn't put Medved in the same group as Levin or Savage, kings of rant. He's not hostile. Levin is rarely interesting or thought invoking, and he's downright predictable.

Medved doesn't seem hostile because he doesn't scream like they do. However he is not fair to liberal callers, or anyone who disagrees with him. He interrupts and doesn't let them make their point. So the end result is the same.

217 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:27:47am

re: #204 Sharmuta

Oh, for Pete's sake! Arguing absolutists points like this is logically fallacious.

Actually, it's apt in context. If one of the main reasons Powell states for NOT voting for Mccain was Palin at #2 it must logically follow that the alternative #2 was okay

218 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:28:00am

re: #186 Charles

I could agree with your sentiments, but not Powell's. As weak a prospect that Palin was in the Big Chair, history seems to show Obama wasn't much stronger.

219 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:28:03am

re: #191 FurryOldGuyJeans

Blah blah blah

220 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:28:11am

re: #205 SixDegrees

Here are mine. At least, these are core Conservative values, which is what motivates me, whereas party values don't move me much. It's a short list:

1. Small government that stays the hell out of my business and everyone else's.

That's it. From this, I expect the following results to flow:

1. Fiscal restraint. See 1, above.

Note that the values espoused by the religious right - bans on abortion, bans on gay marriage, teaching of one particular religion in public schools and the like - are fundamentally at odds with my list, and with Conservatism as a whole. They are attempts to impose one particular set of beliefs on the citizenry through the power of the state, and have no place on any Conservative agenda.

I see it in the inverse- fiscal restraint first. Because once they deal with fiscal responsibility and where the money should be spent, they have to deal with the issue of "what is government's role?" Sticking their nose in our private business is not their role, and I think they'll come back to this via fiscal responsibility. (I otherwise agree with your two points, I just flip them.)

221 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:28:29am

Just to set the fox among the chickens...

It's no secret Powell once had ambitions of running for president himself. Suppose the GOP had picked him as their candidate in 2008, along with any reasonable running mate. Would Obama still have won? I'm not so sure.

Discuss.

222 ducktrapper  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:28:51am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

All well and good and I certainly wouldn't argue that Palin was totally qualified to be president but in the final analysis there was a contest between an unvetted Palin for V.P. versus an unvetted Obama for the top job. There is something wrong with this picture if we are to take Powell at his word. It would seem, to me, that Powell could not, not vote for Obama. The only reason for a Powell to vote for Obama is obviously based solely on shared "race" and that alone.

223 kynna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:02am

re: #210 Charles

I'm pretty sure I didn't write that.

But with Obama, the issue of the vice president is less important, because he's young and in good health -- McCain is neither.

But Obama has less experience than Palin and, how is his pre-presidential record more impressive than hers?

224 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:10am

re: #211 Thanos

If there were a lot of them that were influenced by his endorsement maybe we need him in the party rather than tarred and feathered and run out of the ever shrinking village.

see my #27

225 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:34am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

Agreed, there are fringe elements on either side of the spectrum, but those on the left scare me more. Like you, I held my nose and pulled the lever for McLame, but it was less than satisfying. Palin was a poor choice of a candidate, but there was no question that the alternative was much worse.

Look at the number 1,2, & 3 slots - Obama, Biden, and Pelosi. As much as I dislike the Obamanator, the thoughts of Biden or Pelosi ascending to the Presidency really scare me.

226 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:40am

re: #215 FurryOldGuyJeans

Don't you have another "rule" to throw out, no witty comebacks?

227 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:41am

re: #222 ducktrapper

All well and good and I certainly wouldn't argue that Palin was totally qualified to be president but in the final analysis there was a contest between an unvetted Palin for V.P. versus an unvetted Obama for the top job. There is something wrong with this picture if we are to take Powell at his word. It would seem, to me, that Powell could not, not vote for Obama. The only reason for a Powell to vote for Obama is obviously based solely on shared "race" and that alone.

McCain ran such a horrible campaign, and Palin as his VP pick probably cemented the idea in Powell's mind that Obama was more qualified to be POTUS.

228 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:45am

re: #196 JacksonTn

Charles ... I agree on those points ... I do not think Palin (although I respect her) was ready nor were Obama or Biden ... sad really ....

When it comes right down to brass tacks, the only one who had proven leadership capabilities (and he certainly has a backbone to stand up to the hardest job on earth) was Senator McCain. To me, President Obama is a frontman with a bunch of amateurs for his handlers. He's a photo op.

I like Gov. Palin and think she would have been a better leader than President O.

Senator Biden reminds me of several of my male (Irish) relatives after a beer or five. I can't help liking the guy, but God help us, I don't want the man to be President.

229 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:29:49am

re: #221 Kenneth

Just to set the fox among the chickens...

It's no secret Powell once had ambitions of running for president himself. Suppose the GOP had picked him as their candidate in 2008, along with any reasonable running mate. Would Obama still have won? I'm not so sure.

Discuss.

The MSM, in teamwork with the Demo☭rats, would have painted Powell as an Uncle Tom.

230 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:30:17am

For those of you who think the GOP needs to get back to fiscal responsibility, people tell me how championing things like Intelligent Design and Constitutional bans on freedom help make our party more fiscally sound?

231 tradewind  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:30:31am

I'm sorry, but I don't buy anything re parties or party strategy that Colin Powell has to say. He remained silent when he should have talked, and now he's talking when he should stay silent.
Just saying.

232 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:30:35am

re: #203 Thanos

It's not logical to assume you know someone's motives when they specifically state ones that are counter to your assumption.

Again, you can't read his mind. You don't know, and if you are making assumptions based on skin color that doesn't make Colin the racist.

I don't claim to be a mind reader and you can chose to ignore my opinion on this matter.

I really respect you Thanos. Your views on things are usually dead on and you come well informed and armed with an impressive well of personal knowledge. In this instance, I disagree with you.

Do I respect Colin Powell? Of course I do. I think he is a great man, and if he actually ran for POTUS I would probably vote for him. But, I still think he voted for Obama because of his race.

233 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:30:48am

re: #182 JacksonTn

This is why I questions why Powell voted Obama ...

if my family who have been dems forever ... mainly center right dems ... could not bring ourselves to vote for Obama because he represented imo the far far left wing of the party ... how could Powell who has identified with republicans most of the time ... suddenly vote for someone who is so far left?

It's easy for me to understand because my family, all life long Republicans, voted for Obama too. For them, Palin getting the VP slot was too much. McCain was already a pretty weak candidate, he ran a terrible campaign and had lousy message delivery. There were a lot of high profile defections this past election and a lot of people wrote articles about it.
I think the reason why so many people are having trouble understanding this is because they don't believe the explanations they are given because it doesn't match with their ideology. The reasons are easy to uncover but people are having a hard time accepting them.

234 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:31:08am

re: #226 Ayatrollah

Why should I? You are being enough of a horse's ass all by yourself.

235 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:31:45am

re: #216 ArrowSmith

That's not been my experience. I get about an hour a week, inconsistently when driving. If people behave they seem to get more time.

Levin and Savage will just yell at people, about as interesting as watching "My Man Is Sleeping With My Sister" on Springer.

236 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:31:47am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

How the hell does he reconcile that statement - that Palin was not ready to be President, even though she was on the slate for the number 2 position - with endorsing Obama....who was running for the top slot?
I can deal with his voting for Obama. I can't deal with that kind of bullshit argument.

237 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:32:03am

re: #181 Walter L. Newton

I'll check back.

238 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:32:06am

re: #233 Killgore Trout

And do they have Buyers' Remorse yet?

239 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:32:13am

re: #137 Steffan

That was beautiful. The places appear to be well taken care of.

(cynical aside...I'm guessing that we pay for the maintenance too.)

240 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:32:33am

re: #236 LGoPs

How the hell does he reconcile that statement - that Palin was not ready to be President, even though she was on the slate for the number 2 position - with endorsing Obama....who was running for the top slot?
I can deal with his voting for Obama. I can't deal with that kind of bullshit argument.

How should Charles know? Go ask Colin Powell.

241 tradewind  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:32:40am

re: #232 Desert Dog

I wouldn't have faulted Powell for voting for the first African American president.... if he had only had the stones to admit that that is exactly what he was doing.
But no.

242 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:10am

re: #233 Killgore Trout

It's easy for me to understand because my family, all life long Republicans, voted for Obama too. For them, Palin getting the VP slot was too much. McCain was already a pretty weak candidate, he ran a terrible campaign and had lousy message delivery. There were a lot of high profile defections this past election and a lot of people wrote articles about it.
I think the reason why so many people are having trouble understanding this is because they don't believe the explanations they are given because it doesn't match with their ideology. The reasons are easy to uncover but people are having a hard time accepting them.

Hope they are happy now....your lifelong Republican family members...they voted for an man that stand for everything they should disagree with

243 _RememberTonyC  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:20am

re: #72 Charles

I think it's interesting that whenever ANY Republican comes out and advocates taking the party in a more moderate direction, people start yelling that he's a RINO, we don't need him, good riddance, etc. etc.

It's like watching a meltdown in slow motion.

Powell addresses the accusation that he voted for Obama because of his skin color in the video above, by the way. I agree with him that this accusation is an extremely cheap shot.

Maybe so, but in this post from earlier today, I thought I asked a reasonable question about Powell's support for Obama. Here's the post:

I have been thinking about the Colin Powell/Dick Cheney/Rush Limbaugh circle jerk of the past days and weeks. And I think all of them are partially right and partially wrong. My thoughts ...

Dick and Rush
I agree on plenty of issues with both men. Cheney is the only Republican politician to challenge Obama's lunacy in the areas where he is wrong. Rush also makes a lot of sense and skewers the hypocrisy of his leftist opponents. Both are valuable republican voices. But for me, the bad news is that both seem to want all Republicans to more or less pass some sort of loyalty test. I like Republican policies, but since I am pro choice, I would fail their test. There are others like me that will be shunned by the "true believers" and it's a recipe for a shrinking party.

Colin
I agree with him that the party needs to be inclusive, but he is hypocritical when he makes that statement. The 2008 Republican nominee (McCain) was the most "inclusive" candidate the GOP could possibly have put forth. And in addition, like Powell, he was a military man. So what does Powell do? He endorses the most far left candidate ever to run for president. A man who hangs with the likes of Ayres and Wright? Gee Colin ... is it possible you endorsed Obama for some reason other than his policies? Call me cynical, but there's only one thing I can see that you and Obama have in common.

244 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:24am

re: #196 JacksonTn

Charles ... I agree on those points ... I do not think Palin (although I respect her) was ready nor were Obama or Biden ... sad really ....

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either ticket this time. I can't believe that there was that much inexperience at the top of our political parties.

245 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:30am

re: #136 Dianna

Earlier this week, Powell made some remark about how the people want government spending.

Anything further from my personal principles, I cannot imagine.

* * *
Gen. Colin Powell was a life-long government employee, with free housing in fancy digs all over the world.

He is used to giving orders, and asking for bigger budgets.

I honor Powell's service to our country, but he was always at our country's tit, living larger than leaders of small countries, as our Maximum Military guy.

246 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:30am

re: #233 Killgore Trout

It's easy for me to understand because my family, all life long Republicans, voted for Obama too. For them, Palin getting the VP slot was too much. McCain was already a pretty weak candidate, he ran a terrible campaign and had lousy message delivery. There were a lot of high profile defections this past election and a lot of people wrote articles about it.
I think the reason why so many people are having trouble understanding this is because they don't believe the explanations they are given because it doesn't match with their ideology. The reasons are easy to uncover but people are having a hard time accepting them.

KT ... well, what part of my ideology do you think is keeping me from understanding? ... and KT I have read so much about this during the campaign that lasted forever ...

247 Spare O'Lake  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:44am

IIRC Powell was basically done with the GOP establishment once they hung him out to dry after using him as their chief snake oil salesman over at the UN on the Iraqi WMD issue.
Then he brazenly jumped the political shark right in the heat of the election campaign.
I would have thought that his political credibility is pretty much shot.

248 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:54am

re: #240 Sharmuta

How should Charles know? Go ask Colin Powell.

I was saying that rhetorically. I know Charles wasn't making that argument.

249 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:33:58am

re: #234 FurryOldGuyJeans

You've added so much to the discussion. Thanks for playing now back to your nap.

250 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:13am

re: #230 Sharmuta

For those of you who think the GOP needs to get back to fiscal responsibility, people tell me how championing things like Intelligent Design and Constitutional bans on freedom help make our party more fiscally sound?

The gold standard and the Fair Tax aren't helping either.

251 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:13am

re: #244 Killgore Trout

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either ticket this time. I can't believe that there was that much inexperience at the top of our political parties.

KT ... yes, the field was ... well, lacking ... sad ...

252 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:17am

re: #231 tradewind

I'm sorry, but I don't buy anything re parties or party strategy that Colin Powell has to say. He remained silent when he should have talked, and now he's talking when he should stay silent.
Just saying.

No that is some sentiment I can understand and agree with in general.

253 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:23am

re: #199 Kenneth

Well, theoretically you could argue that people are switching from Democrat to Republican or visa-versa, but that is a stretch. It is far more likely that people who identified as one party or the other are moving to Independent.

There's simply not enough information to reach any sort of conclusion about this in the poll. There's no correlation between samples; they didn't track former respondents, and they didn't ask respondents about their history. Statistics doesn't lend itself to extrapolation. You can only work with the data you have. In this case, the data is simply what's presented, and that's the only story it can tell. To make a determination that one party or the other is suffering more as defections decamp to the independents simply can't be done; there isn't any data here to support it.

It may, in fact, be true. But it would take a study collecting additional information to tell.

254 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:26am

re: #230 Sharmuta

The Big Tent should be big as possible, but leave that stuff outside where it belongs.

255 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:33am

re: #246 JacksonTn

I have no idea.

256 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:34:49am

re: #240 Sharmuta

How should Charles know? Go ask Colin Powell.

Yeah, I'd ask Powell how Palin is LESS qualified than Сенатор Оба́ма was, when all The One™ did was sit there and jerk himself off in the Senate.

257 Earick  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:35:28am

re: #201 Sharmuta

"You can't out-democrat a democrat.
But boy, have "compassionate conservatives" sure tried. Why- it was so successful, that the democrats are now in control of Congress."

Right! But we need a big tent!

/Duh! What!?!

258 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:35:32am

re: #232 Desert Dog

Maybe it's a fault - but I never try not to assume to know motives (sometimes I fail.) Life's too darned complex to make those simple statements. You can guess, but you better characterize it as a guess. I suspect there were several factors in the decision, and maybe some of those were the ones Charles mentioned, maybe some where relative influence he thought he might have in a McCain administration vs the other, maybe another is he flipped a coin... I can't know all the factors, you can't know, so I have to go with what he says.

259 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:35:43am

re: #241 tradewind

I wouldn't have faulted Powell for voting for the first African American president.... if he had only had the stones to admit that that is exactly what he was doing.
But no.

You know, as much as I dislike Obama's policies and as much as I saw right through his bullshit campaign, I was proud the day he was sworn in. I am happy the USA has cracked that barrier down. But, I wish it was Colin Powell or some other African American rather than Obama.

260 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:36:01am

re: #242 Desert Dog

Hope they are happy now....your lifelong Republican family members...


Thanks for your well wishes.

261 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:36:13am

re: #221 Kenneth

Just to set the fox among the chickens...

It's no secret Powell once had ambitions of running for president himself. Suppose the GOP had picked him as their candidate in 2008, along with any reasonable running mate. Would Obama still have won? I'm not so sure.

Discuss.

That's a good question, but I would have probably switched my vote if Powell had moved the party away from the social conservatives. Give me the choice of decent socially liberal, fiscal conservative candidate and you have my attention.

262 legalpad  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:36:16am

re: #230 Sharmuta

Constitutional bans on freedom

To what does this refer exactly?

263 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:37:11am

The arguing on this thread is enough for me to know that we are doomed in 2012. Doomed I tells ya.

Unless the 0bama fan club splinters beyond repair, we are screwed.

264 MrPaulRevere  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:37:17am

I find it fascinating that Reagan is the template the modern GOP always refers to when they speak of electoral success. Reagan was unique to that particular time in American history. Why not refer to Eisenhower as the template for success ? He was no flaming right winger, won two Presidential elections and was by all measures a very successful President.

265 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:37:29am

re: #249 Ayatrollah

Hmmm, let's see who adds more to any discussion around here:

Karma: 30
Ayatrollah
(Logged in)
Registered since: Jun 15, 2004 at 1:54 pm
No. of comments posted: 377
No. of links posted: 0

vs.

Karma: 8,702
FurryOldGuyJeans
Revving up the Yugo on the on-ramp to the information super-highway
(Logged in)
Registered since: Nov 5, 2004 at 10:12 am
No. of comments posted: 14,059
No. of links posted: 14

Ok, you win.

266 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:37:47am

In terms of work experience alone, the ranking of those on the ticket in 2008 as most qualified for the job of president were:

1. John McCain
2. Joe Biden
3. Sarah Palin
4. Barrack Obama

Some people said they objected to Palin because of her lack of experience, but that is nonsense, given Obama had far less experience. In truth, people objected to Palin for her social conservative positions.

In terms of intelligence & education, both Obama & McCain are intelligent and well educated. Palin is intelligent, but not very broadly educated. And Joe Biden is that most marvelous of creatures: not very intelligent, but with a fine education.

267 JacksonTn  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:16am

re: #263 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

The arguing on this thread is enough for me to know that we are doomed in 2012. Doomed I tells ya.

Unless the 0bama fan club splinters beyond repair, we are screwed.

FBV ... well, in a little town called "Hope" ... I mean ahh "Hope and Change" ... hey all we need is a good slogan ... start working on it now! ...

268 Spartacus50  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:28am

In case anyone has forgotten back in the summer of 2000, Colin Powell expressed his willingness to serve under the Gore Administration too. I never liked Bush's decision to appoint him to Secretary of State and he has proven to be one of the worst cabinet appointments in the Bush Administration. His Republican Party membership notwithstanding.

269 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:32am

re: #220 Sharmuta

I see it in the inverse- fiscal restraint first. Because once they deal with fiscal responsibility and where the money should be spent, they have to deal with the issue of "what is government's role?" Sticking their nose in our private business is not their role, and I think they'll come back to this via fiscal responsibility. (I otherwise agree with your two points, I just flip them.)

For me, fiscal responsibility automatically flows from the practice of keeping government small and non-intrusive. You're forced to spend less money by the "small" part, and you're forced to rein in the excessive creation of new programs by the "non-intrusive" part, since almost all government programs are intrusive to a greater or lesser degree.

But that's OK. If we can get to both in a different order, it's the results that matter, not the way we get there.

270 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:41am

Maybe it was unfair press treatment of Palin, but when she went on Couric and couldn't name newspapers she read that was a huge red flag to me.

271 restitutor orbis  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:44am

OK, so he's entitled to his opinion. But here is where he(along with Meghan Mccain) are both acting like jerks:

The both decry the "radical" path of the GOP, and accuse people like Rush and Coulter of being hateful extremists, who are lowering the level of dicourse, all the while ignoring the fact that the other side has advocated assasination, cheered injury and death(Tony Snow, anyone), supported terrorists, accused our soldiers of being murderers, tried to sabotage recruitment, called anyone who didn't have BDS a nazi, etc.Not saying one excuses the other, but they seem to live in a fantasy land where conservatives are hateful drooling throwbacks, and the Democrats are some virtuous, all inclusive movement. Despite all of the bashing of conservatives here lately, I still think the Right outclasses the left in the realm of discourse. Even without Charles's moderation, 1000 posts here have less hate then 10 at Kos or HuffPo

272 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:48am

re: #225 Bubbaman

Yee gods! Thinking of Rep. Pelosi as President makes VP Biden look good.

273 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:38:53am

When Powell says Kemp was for "sharing the wealth," I hope both Kemp and Powell meant something different than what Obama meant when he spoke to Joe the Plumber. Anyone familiar with Kemp's take on it?

274 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:39:04am

re: #250 Killgore Trout

The gold standard and the Fair Tax aren't helping either.

I fail to see how harping on social issues is helping our fiscal message. It's not in the slightest.

However, you can make the argument that fiscal responsibility would benefit social issues without even having to switch hats to a soc-con. When both the government and individuals take financial responsibility for themselves, social spending needs will drop.

And republicans really, really need to drop the anti-science crap. If we want a strong economy, science and technology are beneficial. America needs sci-tech to keep us in the lead economically.

275 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:39:18am

re: #233 Killgore Trout

It's easy for me to understand because my family, all life long Republicans, voted for Obama too. For them, Palin getting the VP slot was too much. McCain was already a pretty weak candidate, he ran a terrible campaign and had lousy message delivery. There were a lot of high profile defections this past election and a lot of people wrote articles about it.
I think the reason why so many people are having trouble understanding this is because they don't believe the explanations they are given because it doesn't match with their ideology. The reasons are easy to uncover but people are having a hard time accepting them.

I still have a sneaking suspicion, that my mother, also a life long Republican voted for Obama. She's always been big on civil rights but hard conservative on all else all her life. Of course I don't know that, and she's not saying...

276 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:39:40am

re: #259 Desert Dog

You know, as much as I dislike Obama's policies and as much as I saw right through his bullshit campaign, I was proud the day he was sworn in. I am happy the USA has cracked that barrier down. But, I wish it was Colin Powell or some other African American rather than Obama.

Free At Last

277 tradewind  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:39:54am

re: #210 Charles

Actually, if you take Obama's family health history and personal habits, (smoker, early maternal and paternal deaths )and compare them to McCain's, ( made it past the perilous sixties with no coronary disease, Mother still kicking in her nineties) there was not compelling evidence that McCain would be less likely to survive four more years. Strictly looking at their ages, yes, but taking into account other factors, not so much.

278 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:39:56am

re: #271 restitutor orbis

That's because Charles has a zero-tolerance policy towards hate posts. Markos tolerates hate.

279 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:41:09am

re: #272 Catttt

Yee gods! Thinking of Rep. Pelosi as President makes VP Biden look good.

I've taken to writing her name thusly: Диктор Пелоси.

280 tradewind  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:41:30am

re: #278 ArrowSmith

Markos tolerates gins up hate.
----There----

281 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:41:59am

re: #245 alegrias

I have to down-ding you for that. On Memorial Day especially, it was very crass and small minded of you to condemn a career military man like that:


"He is used to giving orders, and asking for bigger budgets....he was always at our country's tit,"

Criticize his political statements all you want, but those comments are unworthy of you.

282 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:42:16am

re: #280 tradewind

Markos tolerates gins up hate.
----There----

I was just trying to be generous.

283 midwestgak  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:42:32am

There is no leadership. ANYWHERE. With Bush, we knew certain things and relied on them. Today, we are all going our own way, wafting about.

If I'm missing someone in leadership that motivates you, please, make your argument.

284 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:42:41am

re: #186 Charles

FYI: one of the main reasons Colin Powell gave for endorsing Obama was John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate -- he said she was not ready to be president. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain/Palin because I felt the alternative was worse, but I agree with Powell on this -- I was not impressed at all with Palin.

He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

* * * * *
Charles, that means Colin Powell thinks Joseph Biden the plagiarizing gaffe bag that makes Obama cringe, is qualified to be President.

Powell can stand by his preferred choice of Vice President Joe Biden then. Yeow.

Thanks for sharing that. Now I really question Powell's judgment, if he thinks Joe Biden is presidential material. "What am I saying, God Love Ya" as Biden says.

285 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:43:03am

re: #265 FurryOldGuyJeans

"I have more posts/higher Karma than you" is the wrong argument.

Don't know what y'all are fighting about. Not taking sides.

Just sayin...

286 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:43:14am

re: #247 Spare O'Lake

I think his credibility is gone, too, but that means nothing to the MSM. He is now one of their very favorite "Republicans!"

287 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:43:21am

re: #283 midwestgak

There is no leadership. ANYWHERE. With Bush, we knew certain things and relied on them. Today, we are all going our own way, wafting about.

If I'm missing someone in leadership that motivates you, please, make your argument.

The times bring out real leaders. Things aren't bad enough yet for that.

288 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:43:29am

I see a couple of you men are vying for the foolish old fart of the week award.

289 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:44:03am

re: #277 tradewind

(smoker, early maternal and paternal deaths )

Probably not helpful to factor in ovarian cancer and a car crash....

290 Spare O'Lake  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:44:19am

re: #277 tradewind

Actually, if you take Obama's family health history and personal habits, (smoker, early maternal and paternal deaths )and compare them to McCain's, ( made it past the perilous sixties with no coronary disease, Mother still kicking in her nineties) there was not compelling evidence that McCain would be less likely to survive four more years. Strictly looking at their ages, yes, but taking into account other factors, not so much.

Wow, that is a very impressive actuarial argument.
May I retain you to renogiate my life insurance premiums?
/;D/

291 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:44:19am

re: #265 FurryOldGuyJeans

How many of your 14,000 comments where this: "Ah, the No True Scotsman rule comes again!" or a similar vein? At least two in this thread and yes I apologize, I have a job and rarely have time to post, so my opinion is worthless. You win.

292 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:44:33am

Party Purity, it's the New Black.

Sure.

293 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:44:42am

re: #264 MrPaulRevere

I find it fascinating that Reagan is the template the modern GOP always refers to when they speak of electoral success. Reagan was unique to that particular time in American history. Why not refer to Eisenhower as the template for success ? He was no flaming right winger, won two Presidential elections and was by all measures a very successful President.

I'll stick with Reagan, who was more in the Goldwater mold. People need to turn back to the founder of the modern conservative movement and read Goldwater for themselves. Fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. It wins. (It didn't for Barry because no repub was going to win against the Ghost of Kennedy)

294 [deleted]  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:45:28am
295 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:45:43am

re: #285 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

"I have more posts/higher Karma than you" is the wrong argument.

Don't know what y'all are fighting about. Not taking sides.

Just sayin...

Just pointing out my non-contribution to the discussions here, nothing else.

I wasn't fighting, I was commenting.

296 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:45:45am

re: #283 midwestgak

There is no leadership. ANYWHERE. With Bush, we knew certain things and relied on them. Today, we are all going our own way, wafting about.

If I'm missing someone in leadership that motivates you, please, make your argument.

Nope- it's a rudderless ship.

297 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:45:46am

re: #293 Sharmuta

I'll stick with Reagan, who was more in the Goldwater mold. People need to turn back to the founder of the modern conservative movement and read Goldwater for themselves. Fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. It wins. (It didn't for Barry because no repub was going to win against the Ghost of Kennedy)

That is what gets the Republicans in power. What gets us out of power is acting like Democrats.

298 Spartacus50  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:46:08am

re: #4 Opilio

My 30 years as a registered Republican ended last year. I'm much more comfortable as an Independent.

Sounds like you're much more comfortable being a coward.

299 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:46:08am

re: #253 SixDegrees

Fair enough, the graph alone shows little data to draw any conclusions from. But the most likely conclusion is that Dems & GOP are both losing support as people move to Independent. My hunch is that is the normal state of affairs between elections.

300 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:46:12am

I've been a card carrying Republican since I started voting in 72, and I am hanging in there for this tooth and nail fight the next two years. If someone doesn't turn the SoCon "club for growth (but really Club for fundies") bus around by then I will be registering Dem for the first time in my life after 2010 elections.

301 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:46:53am

re: #294 Earick

I don't think the word you used that begins with an f and a smiley face go well together.

302 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:47:15am

What we're witnessing is the breakdown in party affiliation due to the web and alternative media. Party affiliation preference trends in polling don't make any real difference. If an issue is large enough, such as the bailots, the Dubai ports deal, illegal immigration, the public is going to make it's opposition known. The true measure of party affiliation is do people consider themselves liberal or conservative or in between. In the end, they're going to vote for the person closest to their values.

Colin's problem is that he voted for a democrat exclusively because he was black and got called on it. I also find it fascinating how the decaying media's shows so much concern for a party their actively trying to obliterate. All these discussions are academic because the more President Obama is revealed to be the liberal he is, the more votes he loses from democrats who thought he would govern as a centrist.

303 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:47:19am

Powell is nothing more than an opportunist, and he has zero courage politically. He waited until the last minute to make an endorsement, in essence hedging his bets. Anyone who endorsed PBO and campaigned for him has really no business telling the GOP how to do anything. I know a lot of people voted for PBO but most of them did based on the historical aspect and the lack of knowledge of the issues. Powell can only claim one of those reasons. His voting record, associations, and socialist leanings and agenda were a clear signal to anyone paying attention on how he was going to govern, and to believe that he chose that based on worries about a VP candidate that we only knew for a few weeks is incredibly naive.

And for all this talk of 'purging' - let's be real: the GOP is in trouble because congress is full of democrat-wannabe GOP politicians and we were stuck with a poor presidential candidate. I don't recall anyone saying in 2001 or 2004 that the democrats need to be more inclusive, do you? Of course not - they have no need to be inclusive. What you have in the democrat controlled media is the democrats telling the GOP how to lose elections, while propping up the single most unqualified and dangerously inept president in our history.

304 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:47:51am

Raining cats and dogs here all of a sudden.

305 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:48:13am

re: #297 Desert Dog

That is what gets the Republicans in power. What gets us out of power is acting like Democrats.

Indeed- sticking our noses where they don't belong and spending money like children with Daddy's wallet gets us election day losses every time. If I wanted a big spending nanny- I'd vote democrat.

306 Macker  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:48:21am

re: #300 Thanos

Hope you like living under Demo☭ratic Socialism. I sure as hell won't.

307 [deleted]  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:48:24am
308 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:48:58am

re: #302 Drudge Potato Al

Colin's problem is that he voted for a democrat exclusively because he was black and got called on it.

You have NO proof of that.

So now we totally discount the words someone utters?

309 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:49:03am

re: #300 Thanos

I've seen the word "fundies" two times lately here. Does it refer to "fundamentalist Christians" or those underwear made for two (wife and I got a pair as a wedding gift.)...Now, of course, only I can get into our fundies.

310 ArrowSmith  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:49:05am

"party purges" are something the Soviet Union did - it's not American.

311 [deleted]  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:49:43am
312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:49:43am

re: #304 Catttt

You step in a mud poodle?

313 DEZes  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:49:51am

re: #294 Earick

Are you trying to be banned?

314 MrPaulRevere  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:50:05am

re: #293 Sharmuta

I revere both Reagan and Goldwater, but they were unique to that particular period in American history. Eisenhower was a nice, fuzzy grandfather type figure. Perhaps we need to find another Ike.

315 Ayatrollah  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:50:12am

re: #297 Desert Dog

That is what gets the Republicans in power. What gets us out of power is acting like Democrats.

So true. This is the winning ticket for the GOP.

316 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:50:19am

re: #294 Earick

careful there.

317 midwestgak  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:50:40am

re: #287 ArrowSmith

The times bring out real leaders. Things aren't bad enough yet for that.

um, {ArrowSmith} yes they are. I'm just guessing. You still have a job, right? Just wait. Looking for one will wake you up.

318 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:50:53am

re: #283 midwestgak

re: #296 Sharmuta

Nope- it's a rudderless ship.

How soon we forget. Please tell me in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election after J EFn K was defeated who was at the 'helm" of the Democrat party? After his defeat to Clinton who took the mantle from Dole and how long after. I recall the repubs being leaderless at the time. Post 2000 after Gore was dismissed, the dems were again "ruderless"
I get so tired of hearing/ seeing that the Repubs are leaderless/ ruderless 6 short months after a national election
IT HAPPENS AFTER EVERY PRESIDENTIAL RACE. The losing party is ALWASYS called "dead'

319 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:51:07am

re: #306 Macker

Nope, I like Liberty. I'm not seeing that coming under the SoCons. If it's still this way in 2010 in the R party, I will switch because by then the Dems will be easier to influence.

320 Captain Jack  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:51:21am

The only reason Powell is getting so much play is that the liberal editors and news producers know that to follow Statists like him will make Republicans the permanent minority. If McCain was not enough of a "Moderate" that Powell had to endorse Obama than I don't think there is any GOP moderate that will satisfy him. Certainly Conservatives had issues with McCain. Powell talks about a "big tent" but he could not stand to have Palin in that tent....or any conservative. How on earth is Obama the "moderate" Powell claims to be looking for? The only reason Powell is getting so much play is so he can "rehabilitate" is Republican credentials so he can endorse Democrats in the 2010 elections and Obama in 2012. I guarantee he will be in political ads and in the news talking about how the Republicans are still the "extreme". Also, how is the left and more "moderate" than the right. They could not even stand to have Joe Lieberman in their party and drove him to become an independent even though, domestically, he is as liberal as they get. Powell is as much an authority on how Republicans should remake the party a Megan McCain. Following his advise as it is eagerly promoted by most all the major media is like taking your competitions advise on how to win.

321 ducktrapper  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:51:29am

re: #270 ArrowSmith

Maybe it was unfair press treatment of Palin, but when she went on Couric and couldn't name newspapers she read that was a huge red flag to me.

It came across as stupid alright but then again, some of us do read "all of them" and "none of them". Newpapers being a dying breed, Palin may be ahead of her time and use the internet for a news source. Maybe she uses Drudge or even LGF's links. If that's the case, she would have a hard time answering Couric's question unless she had prepared a list before hand. One of those "gotcha" questions? Yes, a prepared B.S. answer may have made her "look" smarter but is that what we really desire? If so, you have a winner in the present POTUS.

322 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:51:33am

re: #308 FurryOldGuyJeans


Furry,

Unless there was some feud between Powell and McCain we don't know about, that is precisely why he voted for Obama. He stated that the prospect of having a black president would be thrilling. Which it would be and is. After he got called on it, by Rush, that's when he made some protest murmurs but was then silent.

323 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:52:04am

My Siamese wandered off the patio a while ago - my fault - got distracted. Nice Russian lady from the condos next door brought him back, and I apologized profusely for the trouble.

Siamese is in bedroom in the dark. Russian lady scared the heck out of him, and he couldn't figure out how to get over the retaining wall to come back.

Thinking of throwing him out in the rain as an object lesson, but object lessons don't work with cats.

324 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:52:13am

re: #273 wrenchwench

When Powell says Kemp was for "sharing the wealth," I hope both Kemp and Powell meant something different than what Obama meant when he spoke to Joe the Plumber. Anyone familiar with Kemp's take on it?

* * *
Kemp was for "empowerment zones" and expanding the pie, NOT redistributing the pie.

Powell is a top down, former military man used to doling out government issue stuff to military people.

Sorry, Powell's clueless about the millions of "other" people whose enterprise fills the government coffers for defense.

325 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:53:06am

I quote again from the rules posted above:

Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.

326 MacDuff  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:53:29am

While he has annoyed me at times, Powell may well be right on this one; exclusion is never a good policy and a lot of Republicans need to set aside a lot of personal gripes and concentrate on what brings us together, rather that what drives us apart.

I’ve been a registered Republican for going on 30 years, though I have disagreed at times with individual candidates on specific issues. I became a Republican because there was simply no agreement between me and Democrats on any issue, whatsoever.

There still isn’t.

I’m about national security, fiscal responsibility/lower takes, economic growth and the belief in capitalism. These are the things that need to be addressed first and that need has existed for some time. At least the Republicans have showed a half-hearted attempt to at least look like they supported these issues while the Democrats have been, and continue to utterly disdainful.

Though the Republican Party has seem to become a fractured assemblage of single issue groups muttering to themselves, I still cannot find Democrats that are speaking to me, on any issue. One need only look at what four months of what the Legislative and Executive branches of government, controlled by Democrats, has wrought. One need only look at the legislative leaders that they have chosen to make one say “what in the HELL are you people thinking?!”

As far as going “independent”, I can’t imagine what good that would have done. Would I ever have considered voting for Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Obama? No, no, no and no. Would I have considered simply not voting? No.

As far as third parties go; they do more harm than good. This thing needs to be changed fom within and, somehow, WE need to do it.

327 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:54:05am

re: #324 alegrias

Thanks for the info, alegrias.

328 Desert Dog  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:54:27am

re: #318 sattv4u2

re: #296 Sharmuta

How soon we forget. Please tell me in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election after J EFn K was defeated who was at the 'helm" of the Democrat party? After his defeat to Clinton who took the mantle from Dole and how long after. I recall the repubs being leaderless at the time. Post 2000 after Gore was dismissed, the dems were again "ruderless"
I get so tired of hearing/ seeing that the Repubs are leaderless/ ruderless 6 short months after a national election
IT HAPPENS AFTER EVERY PRESIDENTIAL RACE. The losing party is ALWASYS called "dead'

The MSM (and Killgore) are taking great pleasure in the "demise" of the Republican Party right now. We still live in a two party system and things will improve for the Republicans......dancing on our grave may be a tad premature.

329 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:54:39am

re: #325 Charles

I quote again from the rules posted above:

Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.

ruh roh ,,,


((scampering to re-read my rants! please please PLEASE I hope it wasn't me !))

330 kynna  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:54:42am

re: #308 FurryOldGuyJeans

You have NO proof of that.

So now we totally discount the words someone utters?

There's no proof of it and I don't believe it, but I have to say, nothing Colin Powell says can be trusted due to his silence while Scooter Libby was prosecuted/persecuted. He'd lied repeatedly by omission and a decent man suffered for it. Who can believe anything he says or does at this point?

Powell does what's politically expedient for Powell. He's not going to tell me that, and he'd certainly deny it if asked, but his record seems to bear it out.

331 wrenchwench  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:54:59am

re: #322 Drudge Potato Al

Did you watch the clip above?

332 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:55:01am

re: #303 tedzilla99

Powell is nothing more than an opportunist

Well, if Powell were an opportunist he would very well be President today. The office was his to turn down. Which he did. Difficult to say how he would have done in such a campaign, but his name recognition and broad-spectrum popularity were broader than McCain's.

let's be real: the GOP is in trouble because congress is full of democrat-wannabe GOP politicians

Actually, the GOP is in trouble because Congress (and the White House) are full of Democrats.

333 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:55:11am

re: #281 Kenneth

I have to down-ding you for that. On Memorial Day especially, it was very crass and small minded of you to condemn a career military man like that:

Criticize his political statements all you want, but those comments are unworthy of you.

* * * *
Understand.

I stand by my comments about Powell's political motivation and political perspective of top down government, all expenses paid by taxpayers.

334 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:55:19am

re: #313 DEZes

Apparently it worked.

335 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:55:50am

re: #328 Desert Dog

The MSM (and Killgore) are taking great pleasure in the "demise" of the Republican Party right now. We still live in a two party system and things will improve for the Republicans......dancing on our grave may be a tad premature.

As it was in 1960, 1964, and more recently 1992, 1996

Geeezzz ,, maybe i've lived too long and seen too much

THE SKY HAS NEVER FALLEN !

336 DEZes  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:55:52am

re: #334 Kenneth

Apparently it worked.

So it would seem.

337 opnion  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:57:06am

Does anybody else find Powells current talk show lecturing to Republicans arrogant? He bolts the Party for perhaps the most Leftist nominee either party has ever nominated.
He has a problem with Sarah Palins experience in the 2nd slot, but Obama as a Community organizer & part time State & U.S Senator is totally qualified for number one?
He deserts the Party & is now telling them to listen to him?

338 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:57:17am

Syria Sinks Into A Sea Of Unserviced Debt

Russia is suspending its program to upgrade Syria's MiG-31 fighters. In 2007, Russia and Syria signed an agreement by which Russia would provide the country with seven MiG-31 aircraft, as well as equipment and services to upgrade Syria's aging fleet of combat aircraft. The total value of the deal was estimated at $400-500 million. The problem, as usual, revolves around money. Syria simply does not have the cash to pay for the program. This is despite the fact that Russia forgave 70 percent of Syria's debt to them back in 2005. The Syrians had owed over $13 billion.

As it stands, the Syrians can barely afford to keep the equipment they do have running, much less pay out of pocket for new gear. The Syrians simply don't have the money and the Russians are less generous than in the past.

339 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:57:30am

re: #328 Desert Dog


The MSM (and Killgore) are taking great pleasure in the "demise" of the Republican Party right now.


Strawman.

340 Digital Display  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:57:31am

re: #325 Charles

I quote again from the rules posted above:

Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.

Seriously..I can't believe I read that before you banned him..
All all days..of all things to say...Wishing violence on a American General is just so wrong...
Not today...

341 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:58:20am

One of the basic reasons I am a Republican is that they have always been the more adult party. Since 2005 or so the hysterical children and their abusers have taken over however. That's got to change.

342 midwestgak  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:58:37am

re: #318 sattv4u2

You are so hopeful. Please tell me who you see leading America into its glory.

343 alegrias  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:59:10am

re: #300 Thanos

I've been a card carrying Republican since I started voting in 72, and I am hanging in there for this tooth and nail fight the next two years. If someone doesn't turn the SoCon "club for growth (but really Club for fundies") bus around by then I will be registering Dem for the first time in my life after 2010 elections.

* * * *
Hasta la vista, maybe by then Dems will evolve around to your 1972 principles.
Change could be a beautiful thing.
I want you to be happy.

344 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:59:15am

re: #312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

You step in a mud poodle?

No, but I like poodles - here is a gorgeous one getting a kudo. /excuse to link a poodle picture - I think the Obamas should have gotten a poodle.

345 HarryTheHawk  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:59:35am

Is the current administration "moderate"?

346 SixDegrees  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:59:52am

re: #323 Catttt

My Siamese wandered off the patio a while ago - my fault - got distracted. Nice Russian lady from the condos next door brought him back, and I apologized profusely for the trouble.

Siamese is in bedroom in the dark. Russian lady scared the heck out of him, and he couldn't figure out how to get over the retaining wall to come back.

Thinking of throwing him out in the rain as an object lesson, but object lessons don't work with cats.

No; plus, he's won't make the association anyway. He'll wind up with a neurosis centered on dark rooms.

347 Spartacus50  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:59:56am

re: #310 ArrowSmith

"party purges" are something the Soviet Union did - it's not American.

The only people who have been "purged" from the Republican party are those who have willingly left it on their own. Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter and Colin Powell.

348 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:00:01pm

re: #326 MacDuff

While he has annoyed me at times, Powell may well be right on this one; exclusion is never a good policy and a lot of Republicans need to set aside a lot of personal gripes and concentrate on what brings us together, rather that what drives us apart.

I’ve been a registered Republican for going on 30 years, though I have disagreed at times with individual candidates on specific issues. I became a Republican because there was simply no agreement between me and Democrats on any issue, whatsoever.

There still isn’t.

I’m about national security, fiscal responsibility/lower takes, economic growth and the belief in capitalism. These are the things that need to be addressed first and that need has existed for some time. At least the Republicans have showed a half-hearted attempt to at least look like they supported these issues while the Democrats have been, and continue to utterly disdainful.

Though the Republican Party has seem to become a fractured assemblage of single issue groups muttering to themselves, I still cannot find Democrats that are speaking to me, on any issue. One need only look at what four months of what the Legislative and Executive branches of government, controlled by Democrats, has wrought. One need only look at the legislative leaders that they have chosen to make one say “what in the HELL are you people thinking?!”

As far as going “independent”, I can’t imagine what good that would have done. Would I ever have considered voting for Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Obama? No, no, no and no. Would I have considered simply not voting? No.

As far as third parties go; they do more harm than good. This thing needs to be changed fom within and, somehow, WE need to do it.

Really quick - this talk of 'exclusion' is a bit overstated. If the GOP is losing politicians who are basically democrats - Specter, Snowe, etc. then that is the normal cycle of elections - and remember that McCain is exactly the candidate that these brainiacs seem to think the GOP needs, and he only had a decent showing thanks to Sarah Palin. If you recall JFKennedy, he was for a strong defense, anti-communist, and tax cutting. He couldn't get on TV as a democrat today. Clinton and Gore were pro-life until they hit the big time. So, be careful when you talk about exclusion, because what I see is if the GOP were to have strong conservative leadership then you have a big tent. Some people will hang their hat on the social issues [on both sides] but in reality most people vote their wallet. If candidate A is handing out your tax money, and candidate B is wanting to cut your taxes, you have a clear choice.

349 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:01:36pm

I respect Powell, I just disagree with him on many things. He may be a RINO.

But the whole apostasy and hyper chastisement is insane. Back off from that and we can work on our Big Tent.

350 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:02:16pm

re: #342 midwestgak

You are so hopeful. Please tell me who you see leading America into its glory.

I don't know yet. But I also didn't know after trhe disaster election of Carter in 76 that it would produce a Reagan. And mind you, in May of 1977 6 months after the election the repubs were "ruderless"

351 solomonpanting  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:02:41pm

re: #18 Killgore Trout

From the Krugman article:

Who would have thought that America’s largest state, a state whose economy is larger than that of all but a few nations, could so easily become a banana republic?

I guess he doesn't know what a banana republic is. What a stupid statement.

352 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:03:34pm

re: #332 SixDegrees

Well, if Powell were an opportunist he would very well be President today. The office was his to turn down. Which he did. Difficult to say how he would have done in such a campaign, but his name recognition and broad-spectrum popularity were broader than McCain's.

let's be real: the GOP is in trouble because congress is full of democrat-wannabe GOP politicians

Actually, the GOP is in trouble because Congress (and the White House) are full of Democrats.

The second part of what I said is that he has no political courage. He would likely be pres if he had the courage to state his positions, which he did not. He would likely be pres if he weren't afraid of the scrutiny given to major candidates, which he is. He would be revealed as another big government pseudo-republican and not much better than McCain. He can now just go on the shows, spout a few lines, stay above the real action, and not damage his media rep.

353 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:04:01pm

re: #342 midwestgak

re: #350 sattv4u2

I don't know yet. But I also didn't know after trhe disaster election of Carter in 76 that it would produce a Reagan. And mind you, in May of 1977 6 months after the election the repubs were "ruderless"

THATS the point i've been making. All this "THE SKY IS FALLING,,, THE SKY IS FALLING" is mindless. We've been here before, we will be here again. In between we will be in power and the DEMS will be there, as they have been there before

354 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:05:55pm

re: #264 MrPaulRevere

I find it fascinating that Reagan is the template the modern GOP always refers to when they speak of electoral success. Reagan was unique to that particular time in American history. Why not refer to Eisenhower as the template for success ? He was no flaming right winger, won two Presidential elections and was by all measures a very successful President.

You raise a good point, but the Eisenhower administration was elected in a very different era in a very different America. Although Reagan had significant failings, his leadership and vision are sorely missed.

There is no single candidate who can be all things to all people - BHO notwithstanding. Invariably there will be some who feel disenfranchised. But Reagan had a way of articulating his vision which nullified the voices of the dissenters. Bush and McCain lacked this ability and more importantly a firm commitment to principle.

Although it pains me to say this, but Barry had, for better or for worse, the ability to project a largess (although I think most of that is his ego) and betterment that McCain could not. Unfortunately, too many Americans swallowed the bait without performing the necessary due diligence; they failed to see who he was, what he believed, or how we was going to get there. Now, unfortunately all of us are along for a ride in a jitney with no wheels.

355 Catttt  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:06:47pm

re: #296 Sharmuta

Into this world were thrown
Like a dog without a bone
An actor out on loan

Youtube Video
356 DEZes  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:07:07pm

re: #340 HoosierHoops

Seriously..I can't believe I read that before you banned him..
All all days..of all things to say...Wishing violence on a American General is just so wrong...
Not today...

I have read the whole thread, its been a little volatile, but that was just asking for the ban stick.

357 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:09:08pm

re: #331 wrenchwench

Indeed I did.

358 sattv4u2  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:09:54pm

WOW ,,, the parralells to 1976 are weird.

A very unpopular President (Ford/ Bush) succedded by a very very far lefty (Carter/ Obama) who ran against a very weak Republican (Dole/ McCain) and during the new presidents term Iran caused shit!

359 Captain Jack  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:10:47pm

Powell and how he dealt with a letter from a soldier who was trying to get the My Lai massacre investigated from Wikipedia:
Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American[25] soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai.[26] In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[27]

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, a former member of Charlie Company, who, independently of Glen, sent a letter detailing the events at My Lai to President Richard M. Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress

360 Obsidiandog  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:11:37pm

With this interview and others, Powell is allowing the media to use him as a cudgel to further damage the Republican party and conservatives in general (under the guise of offering his sage advice as a "Republican" elder.). He has no more interest in seeing conservatives ascendant or the party grow strong again than the media or this administration does. It appears to me he's trying to sow seeds of dissension in republican ranks and it is working. He endorsed Obama before the election, and the hits just keep on comin'.

361 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:14:05pm

re: #354 Bubbaman

I suppose you're for hyper chastisement and apostasty for Powell. That's great.

Methinks I won't fit into the party either than because I won't pass The Test either.

362 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:14:15pm

re: #360 Obsidiandog

Yeah, yeah... it's always the media's fault. When are you children going to quit playing the victim? You've drunk this kool aid so long you have to throw it up every time reality goes counter to your wishes.

363 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:16:44pm

POWELL WHY DO YOU HATE CONSERVATIVES?

364 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:16:46pm

re: #360 Obsidiandog

With this interview and others, Powell is allowing the media to use him as a cudgel to further damage the Republican party and conservatives in general (under the guise of offering his sage advice as a "Republican" elder.). He has no more interest in seeing conservatives ascendant or the party grow strong again than the media or this administration does. It appears to me he's trying to sow seeds of dissension in republican ranks and it is working. He endorsed Obama before the election, and the hits just keep on comin'.

Absolutely! And this proves how disengenuous Powell is. Had he been inclined to "reform" the Republican party he would have done so from within - by influencing policy, convincing those to join him, and by publicly refuting the Demoncrap's ideals. A Jack Kemp he ain't!

365 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:19:04pm

What should be observed as well in this discussion is that General Powell's observations about the republican party's decline are directly after a 2 term republican president and 12 years of republican rule of the house. The pendulum swings back and forth from the parties and every political strategist will say that there's a much greater chance of the opposing party winning a presidential election directly after two terms of the previous party. That's EXACTLY why Obama ran for president in '08 versus '12.

Regarding congress, people got used to the fact that taxes for the average middle class citizen were not raised for 12 years and the public got desensitized to that. The minute taxes go up for the middle class as they're likely to do now, that will bring Republican popularity back. It's as easy as that.

Colin should have saved the inclusiveness discussion for all the southern democrats who refused to vote for a black man and voted Hillary. Remember that little detail?

366 Obsidiandog  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:20:53pm

re: #270 ArrowSmith
What was she supposed to say, the Anchorage Daily? Couric lives in New York, so of course she reads the Times, works at CBS News,everything at her beck and call, etc. You don't have to read "the Newspaper of Record" to be well informed. I would much rather have a person with core values than a hack like Katie Couric. That being said, I wish Palin had just told her //"Why, I get all my news and analysis from CBS News of course."//
I think Couric probably would have left it at that.

367 Wendya  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:21:08pm

Let me get this straight....

Endorsing Obama for president makes one a "Centrist" or "Moderate" republican?

Bullshit.

368 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:21:13pm

A Republican does not publically endorse the Bonkey candidate.

/fail

369 Nevergiveup  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:21:49pm

I am sorry Charles. On this one, I just don't need to be lectured by someone with no loyalty and someone who both voted for and endorsed such a absolute neophyte as Obama. If Powell had voted and supported McCain, and was now talking about how to repair the Republican Party, well that's one thing, But I am not looking for nor taking advice from a ingrate.

370 Gus  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:21:53pm

re: #359 Captain Jack

You might want to check the citations you use for that entry regarding My Lai. Why you felt the need to bring up My Lai in this context is confusing but the citation referenced an number 25 is to a Consortium News site which is edited by a Robert Parry who wrote Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth" (1999) and Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004) This same Robert Parry has also said, on the same Consortium website the following:

Israel, a nation that was born out of Zionist terrorism, has launched massive airstrikes against targets in Gaza using high-tech weapons produced by the United States, a country that often has aided and abetted terrorism by its client military forces, such as Chile’s Operation Condor and the Nicaraguan contras, and even today harbors right-wing Cuban terrorists implicated in blowing up a civilian airliner.

Check before you post citing such sources unless you believe that sort of ideology.

371 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:23:42pm

re: #364 Bubbaman

Is it possible that he tried to influence the party from within and was unsuccessful (as it probably should have been)?

Now, he's trying to influence the party from the outside. It's a different time and place, and for different reasons.

Does this mean we should merely resist any changes he ascribes to because of support for Obama, or previous issue advocacy when he was in better graces?

372 neoconundrum  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:25:27pm

Colin Powell is one to talk. He voted for the most extreme Leftist in American history instead of John McCain, one of the most liberal Republicans in recent memory.

Sure.

373 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:26:00pm

re: #361 BigPapa

I suppose you're for hyper chastisement and apostasty for Powell. That's great.

Methinks I won't fit into the party either than because I won't pass The Test either.

Powell does not speak for the Republican party nor its leadership. If he wants to claim that he is "registered" to vote as a Republican then that's fine. But if can't see how the lefty media is using him as tool to fulminate dissent and chaos, then Powell is dumber than I think.

BTW, I wouldn't pass the litmus tests either. As I've mentioned before, I am loyal to the United States and the Constitution not "the party". Insofar as these interests coincide, I'm supportive of the GOP. Since the Demoncraps fail to have any interests in preserving the US, I have nothing but contempt for them.

374 debutaunt  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:26:36pm

re: #304 Catttt

Raining cats and dogs here all of a sudden.

doggggs.

375 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:27:04pm

re: #362 Thanos

Yeah, yeah... it's always the media's fault. When are you children going to quit playing the victim? You've drunk this kool aid so long you have to throw it up every time reality goes counter to your wishes.

This was what I meant yesterday when I said beating up on big tobacco was fueling a increase in victimhood mentality. Everyone's a victim now.

376 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:27:57pm

Hell, Arlen Specter didn't endorsed Obama.

/and hes a . . . well, nevermind

377 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:28:43pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

WOW ,,, the parralells to 1976 are weird.

A very unpopular President (Ford/ Bush) succedded by a very very far lefty (Carter/ Obama) who ran against a very weak Republican (Dole/ McCain) and during the new presidents term Iran caused shit!

In 1976, the Dole did not run for President for the Republicans, Gerald Ford did. Dole was his V-P ticket.

378 MacDuff  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:29:12pm

re: #348 tedzilla99

Really quick - this talk of 'exclusion' is a bit overstated. If the GOP is losing politicians who are basically democrats - Specter, Snowe, etc. then that is the normal cycle of elections - and remember that McCain is exactly the candidate that these brainiacs seem to think the GOP needs, and he only had a decent showing thanks to Sarah Palin. If you recall JFKennedy, he was for a strong defense, anti-communist, and tax cutting. He couldn't get on TV as a democrat today. Clinton and Gore were pro-life until they hit the big time. So, be careful when you talk about exclusion, because what I see is if the GOP were to have strong conservative leadership then you have a big tent. Some people will hang their hat on the social issues [on both sides] but in reality most people vote their wallet. If candidate A is handing out your tax money, and candidate B is wanting to cut your taxes, you have a clear choice.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. Specter wasn't excluded, he excluded himself, and he's done it before. By today's standards, JFK would be considered a center-right Republican, in my opinion.

When I speak of exclusion, it our tendency to exclude candidates that don't necessarily fit all of the expectations of the individual factions. Yes, I have no doubt that a strong conservative leader could re-erect that big tent that Reagan built, but we have to have some self identity, as Republicans, to even be receptive to that type of leadership. Until we have that self-identity, and we are willing to be united, I have to question whether we would even recognize that leader.

We can't wait for the "conservative messiah" to solve our problems, we need to do some groundwork for ourselves.

379 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:29:21pm

We shouldn't allow liberal political opportunists like Colin Powell define the Republican party.

380 American Sabra  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:29:23pm

re: #365 Drudge Potato Al

Colin should have saved the inclusiveness discussion for all the southern democrats who refused to vote for a black man and voted Hillary. Remember that little detail?

Powell didn't support Obama until he won the primary so that little detail you mentioned is non-existent.

381 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:30:28pm

re: #371 BigPapa

Is it possible that he tried to influence the party from within and was unsuccessful (as it probably should have been)?

Now, he's trying to influence the party from the outside. It's a different time and place, and for different reasons.

Does this mean we should merely resist any changes he ascribes to because of support for Obama, or previous issue advocacy when he was in better graces?

Two words - Jack Kemp. Actually, I use my allotment of more than two words. There are plenty of people who are struggling to change the party and they have met varying degrees of success. But to borrow a very crummy metaphor, if things aren't working well between you and your wife, sleeping with the neighbor next door ain't gonna' make things better.

382 FrogMarch  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:30:32pm

Rush Limbaugh is, for the most part, no longer a helpful pundit.

383 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:31:34pm

re: #379 brockton808

We shouldn't allow liberal political opportunists like Colin Powell define the Republican party.

Instead we should allow kooks like ron paul to define us? Maybe we should allow the media to define us? Or maybe, just maybe, we should step up and define ourselves?

Of course, in order to define ourselves, we would first have to figure out what it is we are. What are we now- in your opinion?

384 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:32:52pm

re: #379 brockton808

We shouldn't allow liberal political opportunists like Colin Powell define the Republican party.

He has not been given the charge of "defining the Republican party". He's just a person giving his opinion which you are not being forced to accept.

385 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:33:49pm

re: #380 American Sabra

Sabra,

Powell continuing the false premise that Republicans are not inclusive is what I was referring to there. I should have specified. Thanks.

386 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:34:07pm

re: #373 Bubbaman

If Powell is being used as a cudgel to smack around the GOP, we might as well add Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and a litany of other ship jumpers to the list. I don't find Powell letting himself being used in that way, although some may take any statement he makes for their own maximum value. He's a man with a compelling story and history, respectable, and has an alternate opinion on many issues. Many times I've disagreed with him and stand by those assertions. He doesn't run the party and probably isn't the future.

However, I cannot agree that he's willfully letting himself be used to damage the GOP. That's over the top.

Shall he be put out of the Tent?

387 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:35:13pm

re: #382 FrogMarch

Rush Limbaugh is, for the most part, no longer a helpful pundit.

Of course he is, just for the Democrats He has a very small tent in mind, to the exclusion of anyone that is going to pull votes from beyond the base.

388 Wendya  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:35:14pm

re: #300 Thanos

I will be registering Dem for the first time in my life after 2010 elections.

If you support the state being mommy and daddy, why did you ever register republican?

389 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:35:43pm

re: #382 FrogMarch
I'm sorry but I disagree vehemently. Rush is a wonderful entertainer and more often than not, he's right. He is not the face of the Republican party as much as the left would like to paint him out to be.

390 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:35:49pm

Hey, as long as we're taking advice from Obama voters, maybe we could just hire David Axelrod.

/he seems to be pretty good at winning elections

391 debutaunt  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:35:58pm

re: #346 SixDegrees

No; plus, he's won't make the association anyway. He'll wind up with a neurosis centered on dark rooms.

...and hammers and sickles.

392 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:36:03pm

re: #382 FrogMarch

FrogMarch,

Both Rush and Cheney are invincible and they have nothing to lose. That's precicely why the decaying media is doing what they can to counter them.
Rush and Cheney see this for what it is. A way to get conservatives to quite down so that Obama has the least opposition possible. Note also that purging of moderates did very well for the democrats in this last election. Not as much in 2006 when they ran democrats as conservative democrats

393 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:37:25pm

re: #379 brockton808

Then don't. Dealing with Powell by ranting about what an asshole, idiot, apostate, or otherwise miscreant he is isn't a winning strategy.

He said some things that make sense today. I guess too many of us are too worked up about it to see the forest for the trees.

394 avanti  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:37:36pm

re: #389 Bubbaman

I'm sorry but I disagree vehemently. Rush is a wonderful entertainer and more often than not, he's right. He is not the face of the Republican party as much as the left would like to paint him out to be.

The fact that the left wants him to be painted as that voice, should be a clue as to who his entertaining is helping.

395 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:37:50pm

re: #388 Wendya

If you support the state being mommy and daddy, why did you ever register republican?

How have the Republicans exactly fought off the "nanny state" over the past 8 or 9 years? Growing government has been just as much a Republican effort as a Democrat one. Beyond that the Social Conservatives have

396 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:38:46pm

re: #386 BigPapa

Shall he be put out of the Tent?

/he publicly endorsed Obama, who's tent is he in?

397 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:39:13pm

re: #395 Bloodnok

How have the Republicans exactly fought off the "nanny state" over the past 8 or 9 years? Growing government has been just as much a Republican effort as a Democrat one. Beyond that the Social Conservatives have

oops.

Beyond that some Social Conservative policies are interested in a social nanny state. I don't particularly want that either.

398 jvic  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:39:23pm

Yesterday, I commented:

Despite my disagreement & dissatisfaction with Colin Powell, I don't forget he said this:
[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are.

Are these the expedient words of a slithering opportunist?

399 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:41:29pm

re: #395 Bloodnok

How have the Republicans exactly fought off the "nanny state" over the past 8 or 9 years? Growing government has been just as much a Republican effort as a Democrat one. Beyond that the Social Conservatives have

Exactly. I wonder if some people are in denial that the republicans squandered their gains made from the fiscal responsibility agenda of the 90s by ignoring fiscal responsibility. Until folks start realizing the last 8 years were dem-lite from the republicans, I don't think they'll understand what the problem is.

400 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:41:29pm

re: #396 Killian Bundy

He's still reg. GOP. He's still in the tent. But let me rephrase:

Will we let him return?
Will we let him return if he as something to offer?

I have to go to the hardware store, BBIAW. I look forward to replying to you and Bubba.

401 shortshrift  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:41:49pm

When is a Republican not a Republican? When he votes Democrat.
Colin Powell was not a Republican when he voted for Obama, and when he voted for Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter.
As I have said before, party affiliation is a very coarse way to predicate oneself, and in any case the ballot is secret. One may "be" a Democrat (whatever that means in terms of policies agreed with) and vote Republican.
One may may "be" a moderate, but in voting for a Republican or Democrat one is associating oneself with extremists who vote Republican or with extremists who vote Democrat.
I am an atheist conservative , but my conservatism is more important than my atheism were I to vote. That the Democrats "include" true socialists and post-nationalists who have set policy for the party platform, takes me out of their tent, even if I do not mind if homosexuals marry each other, or women choose to have abortions. I would overlook the fact that the Republicans "include" creationists, ID advocates, theists or deists, if - a big if - voting Republican still meant upholding equality before the law, a free market economy, and a Constitution which guards America as a sovereign nation. If too many "moderates" with big government, internationalist ideas staked out the center of the Republican party , I would take myself out of that tent, too.

402 rumcrook  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:41:53pm

7 redshirt

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the dems made us look weak and hypocritical.

dead on, ok the republicans need to be more inclusive but this is ridiculous and powel should know it, he jumped ship becuase of race. and if it really was because of ideas than thier stillk is no home for him in the republican party, why have a republican party if its beliefs are the same as the democrats?

403 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:42:24pm

re: #386 BigPapa

If Powell is being used as a cudgel to smack around the GOP, we might as well add Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and a litany of other ship jumpers to the list. I don't find Powell letting himself being used in that way, although some may take any statement he makes for their own maximum value. He's a man with a compelling story and history, respectable, and has an alternate opinion on many issues. Many times I've disagreed with him and stand by those assertions. He doesn't run the party and probably isn't the future.

However, I cannot agree that he's willfully letting himself be used to damage the GOP. That's over the top.

Shall he be put out of the Tent?

Personally, I have disagreed with Powell more than I've agreed. He was wrong about GW I and GW II. He's been wrong about the FSU, Middle East and has been decidedly pro-Arab. And this is just a start.

He is being used by media and if he is unable to understand this then as I've said before, he must be dumber than I think. Had he behaved like that in the military, he would have been in the brig as a buck private. The guy must understand the difference.

Again, if he wants to call himself a private citizen who is registered to vote as a "Republican" that's fine.

404 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:43:41pm

re: #383 Sharmuta

The choice between a far left idealogue like Obama and a libertarian Ron Paul is a false one. We don't need to spend more, tax more, and continue to usurp our freedom.

It's pretty simple. Republicans should get back to their roots of fiscal discipline, a strong foreign security policy, and power distributed among the states as it should be -- not total federal power.

Obama represents just the opposite of these values, and Colin Powell endorsed him! How can Powell expect to speak for the party now?

I presume you like good moderates like Specter, Snowe, Collins, McCain, etc?

405 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:43:43pm

re: #343 alegrias

* * * *
Hasta la vista, maybe by then Dems will evolve around to your 1972 principles.
Change could be a beautiful thing.
I want you to be happy.

Hey if I leave in 2010 because the party of Lincoln doesn't really exist at that time I do hope you enjoy your continuing membership in the Southern Dixiecrat Homeskoolerz party.

406 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:44:26pm

re: #398 jvic

Word and Deed are important and the two in his case don't seem to coincide.

407 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:46:29pm

re: #388 Wendya

If you support the state intefering in your life and pushing religion on other people's children and overarching luddism you just stay on and cry in your misery. In the meantime I'll be working to deselect some of the dixiecrat homeschoolers from party leadership. I've been here a hell of a lot longer than them.

408 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:47:05pm

re: #404 brockton808

good moderates like Specter, Snowe, Collins

/thanks for insane "stimulus" bill that Republicans almost blocked

409 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:49:14pm

re: #404 brockton808

You presume wrong.

And Colin Powell isn't speaking for the party, he's speaking to the party. There's a difference.

I fail to see how pushing social issues helps get back fiscal responsibility, BTW. It's social issues that are killing the republicans. Many of us want fiscal responsibility, and if the GOP isn't going to be the party that represents that, then I have no political home.

410 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:52:43pm

re: #399 Sharmuta

Exactly. I wonder if some people are in denial that the republicans squandered their gains made from the fiscal responsibility agenda of the 90s by ignoring fiscal responsibility. Until folks start realizing the last 8 years were dem-lite from the republicans, I don't think they'll understand what the problem is.

Using the last 8 years as a guide I would say that the Republicans didn't go "Democrat-lite" in terms of spending, the Democrats are going "Republican-plus".

411 solomonpanting  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:57:30pm

Hey!
moonstone

Just wondering what you disagree with on my #351.

412 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:57:55pm

re: #378 MacDuff

I think we agree on more than we disagree. Specter wasn't excluded, he excluded himself, and he's done it before. By today's standards, JFK would be considered a center-right Republican, in my opinion.

When I speak of exclusion, it our tendency to exclude candidates that don't necessarily fit all of the expectations of the individual factions. Yes, I have no doubt that a strong conservative leader could re-erect that big tent that Reagan built, but we have to have some self identity, as Republicans, to even be receptive to that type of leadership. Until we have that self-identity, and we are willing to be united, I have to question whether we would even recognize that leader.

We can't wait for the "conservative messiah" to solve our problems, we need to do some groundwork for ourselves.

I agree, friend - I only think that the party needs a cohesive message, and there isn't one. I attended a rally for W in 2004 and Voinovich and DeWine - the GOP Senators at the time - both for the benefit of the crowd announced how we needed to stand behind W etc etc. What happens next? DeWine joins the gang of 14 which prevented some excellent judges from being confirmed, and Voinovich goes on a crusade against Bolton, who was so desperately needed at the UN. With politicians like that, why vote against the democrat? McCain was more interested in being on TV as the 'maverick' and couldn't say enough nice things about dems while backstabbing W and selling out the 1st amendment with 'campaign finance reform'. Losing those idiots and a few others is a recipe for success, but most can only drink the media Kool-aid, which is the social cons are wrecking the party. Not even close to the case, but some keep thinking it!

So, I agree, we need to do the work and part of it is removing the RINOs and wannabes and get some real leadership.

413 Bubbaman  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:58:22pm

re: #409 Sharmuta

You presume wrong.

And Colin Powell isn't speaking for the party, he's speaking to the party. There's a difference.

I fail to see how pushing social issues helps get back fiscal responsibility, BTW. It's social issues that are killing the republicans. Many of us want fiscal responsibility, and if the GOP isn't going to be the party that represents that, then I have no political home.

Absolutely. Reagan was pro-life yet his administration wasn't defined by this position. He had the ability to ascend beyond the politics of personal destruction and parlay the focus on more significant issues. Allowing one to be defined as pro-this or anti-that on complex social and moral issues is problematic and given the challenges we face as a nation, everything else is secondary.

414 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 12:58:35pm

re: #409 Sharmuta

Did I even mention social issues in my post? No. Apparently you're responding to what you wanted me to post.

That said, I have a question for you. Upon what precepts were our laws founded? I dare say some "social issues" were involved when they were enacted.

415 Yosemite Bill  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:01:56pm

General Powell lost any and credibility with me when he did not have the gonads to finish the Republican Guard during the first Gulf War. That resulted in the slaughter of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs by Saddam. The blood of those folks in on Colin's hands.
Colin's behavior during the Valerie/ Libby mess just confirmed that Colin acts in COLIN'S self interest first and only. The country, the President and his party be damned.
Colin's assertion that his endorsement of BHO was NOT based on race is vapid.
BHO's resume for President is so thin as to be transparent and would be laughable had BHO not been "an historic candidate," radical "progressive', and main stream media love child. For the record Charles, Palin's executive experience resume far out weighted BHO's but I know that being a Conservative( practicing) Christian is an automatic cause for disqualification for any elected office....... in some circles.
So now BHO is President and is in over his head. The US economy is in the tank and the radical (socialist) "progressive" President thinks he can tax and redistribute wealth that has not been created and in doing so the Feds can force the 70 % of GDP( that is not gov't spending) into prosperity. That is a historically proven prescription for financial disaster.
On foreign policy and national defense BHO is Chamberlain, Carter with a little Rev Wright and Bill Ayers thrown in for spice. Translation - BHO feels he can be "morally superior" to Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 and that and BHO's naturally superior intellect is all that is required to convince the world that the US means them no harm.
Defeating the Islamists is not necessary. BHO will just apologize.
Colin Powell helped put BHO in the Presidency and now Powell will do what is necessary for Powell to look good. Colin still wants to go all the hip beltway parties after all.

416 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:04:02pm

re: #415 Yosemite Bill

General Powell lost any and credibility with me when he did not have the gonads to finish the Republican Guard during the first Gulf War. That resulted in the slaughter of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs by Saddam. The blood of those folks in on Colin's hands.

The decision not to push on into Iraq in the first Gulf War was made by George H. W. Bush -- not by Colin Powell.

417 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:04:17pm

re: #415 Yosemite Bill

That was Bush 41's decision, not Powell's. Strawman bullshit.

418 hellosnackbar  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:05:17pm

Well lizards ,since a large portion of republicans and almost all democrats fall within the idiotarian spectrum maybe the lgf party(platform common sense)might appeal to the common sense embracing American public?

419 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:08:11pm

re: #413 Bubbaman

Absolutely. Reagan was pro-life yet his administration wasn't defined by this position. He had the ability to ascend beyond the politics of personal destruction and parlay the focus on more significant issues. Allowing one to be defined as pro-this or anti-that on complex social and moral issues is problematic and given the challenges we face as a nation, everything else is secondary.

Exactly how the Dems took over congress too. They put aside all overt anti-gun rhetoric and plans for the time being. They adopted fiscal conservatism at the local levels where they needed to. They aren't all out to get Jim Webb, even though he distinctly disagreed with Obama over Gitmo. They would even take Lieberman back if they thought they could get him.

420 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:09:48pm

re: #409 Sharmuta

You presume wrong.

And Colin Powell isn't speaking for the party, he's speaking to the party. There's a difference.

I fail to see how pushing social issues helps get back fiscal responsibility, BTW. It's social issues that are killing the republicans. Many of us want fiscal responsibility, and if the GOP isn't going to be the party that represents that, then I have no political home.

The social issues are being overblown - remember that democrats are crafting the message. They want those who aren't in line with those issues to think the GOP is going to a full-on theocracy mode. The reason why McCain lost isn't because of social issues, the reason that the GOP lost the majority in 2006 isn't because of social issues, but if you want to believe that go ahead. It's very clear that conservatives do not want the spending and lack of responsibility in the congress, and therefore are staying home because they have nobody to vote for. Conservatives generally liked Palin's fiscal conservative credentials and believe me, without her, McCain is lucky to see 35%.

The democrats want you to believe that the GOP is being overrun with ID nuts and religious wackos. It's just not the case. Yes there seems to be a lot of it at the local level, but you hear about it so much now because that's the recipe for GOP defeat - don't challenge us on the issues, paint all of us as wackos so we don't get taken seriously. That also explains the lower party identification numbers - who wants to be abused by leftists who don't care about tolerance or free speech, only bullying?

421 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:11:11pm

re: #416 Charles

The decision not to push on into Iraq in the first Gulf War was made by George H. W. Bush -- not by Colin Powell.

Actually it was made by the UN resolution we secured before invading...but yes, H.W. followed that rather than continuing into Iraq.

422 Kronocide  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:12:36pm

What do we all think about Lieberman now?

423 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:12:57pm

re: #414 brockton808

That said, I have a question for you. Upon what precepts were our laws founded? I dare say some "social issues" were involved when they were enacted.

Our laws were founded on the precepts of the constrained vision. It had nothing to do with social issues, and everything to do with how to best protect the rights of individuals from encroachment upon them by government and man alike.

424 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:15:02pm

re: #420 tedzilla99

It's just not true that the RR isn't pushing the party. The dems promote this idea because there is no one to prove them wrong. We had them this issue on a sliver platter.

425 Yosemite Bill  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:15:15pm

#416/417
So has Chrmn. of the Joint Chfs. you are saying that he had no influence ?
Yes Bush 41 was POTUS and Bush was and is (still) culpable for that slaughter as well but to say Powell is blameless is being willfully blind. If Bush 41 did not want to finish the R. Guard and Powell thought is was necessary then Powell should have resigned and put that failure clearly on Bush 41.
Powell does not get a pass. Leadership and power come with responsibility.

426 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:17:43pm

re: #322 Drudge Potato Al

Furry,

Unless there was some feud between Powell and McCain we don't know about, that is precisely why he voted for Obama. He stated that the prospect of having a black president would be thrilling. Which it would be and is. After he got called on it, by Rush, that's when he made some protest murmurs but was then silent.

And yet repeatedly the reasons, in his own words. why Powell voted the way he did get linked here. And he stated in no uncertain terms race was not a factor.

427 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:19:29pm

re: #424 Sharmuta

It's just not true that the RR isn't pushing the party. The dems promote this idea because there is no one to prove them wrong. We hand them this issue on a sliver platter.

PIMF

428 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:20:06pm

re: #423 Sharmuta

So what is protecting

...the rights of individuals from encroachment upon them by government and man alike.

? Isn't that based on some moral judgment?

429 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:21:44pm

re: #424 Sharmuta

It's just not true that the RR isn't pushing the party. The dems promote this idea because there is no one to prove them wrong. We had them this issue on a sliver platter.

I'm sorry, but you're playing right into it, especially by using the RR boogeyman. The dems promote it because they own the media! For example, you can be against the gay marriage movement from other than religious beliefs - I find that judges and mayors who do this outside of the ballot box to be a problem. You can say that the marriage-protection issues and the constitutional amendments are religious in origin, but I think that they are about the only way to prevent judicial fiat. But, it's easier for the dems to demonize the GOP by calling us religious nuts, then they don't have to defend their ideas and agenda.

430 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:23:04pm

re: #428 brockton808

Are you just trying to drive home some point on religion? Because morality and religion, while intertwined, are not necessarily exclusive. I know many atheists who are more moral than the fiercest Bible thumper.

431 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:23:45pm

re: #429 tedzilla99

Can you name 5 republicans that don't support Intelligent Design?

432 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:24:37pm

re: #362 Thanos

Yeah, yeah... it's always the media's fault. When are you children going to quit playing the victim? You've drunk this kool aid so long you have to throw it up every time reality goes counter to your wishes.

Fucking A right it's the media's fault. Rather than being the public's watchdog they are a junkyard dog guarding the Democratic Party and it's interests. They are a wholly owned PR subsidiary of the Democratic Party and as such have abrogated their role and responsibilities to this Republic. They are fucking Pravda and I resent the shit out of them.
Kool Aid my Ass.

433 Drudge Potato Al  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:24:38pm

re: #426 FurryOldGuyJeans

Furry, he can't state that and won't. I will say that he likely waited until he knew that McCain had no chance. The reason I mentioned a possible feud between McCain and Powell is that McCain is the EXACT type of Republican that Powell is talking about. That's why Obama's race was the tipping point. He confirms this in the interview by saying he voted strait Republican since Reagan's first term.

434 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:26:34pm

re: #431 Sharmuta

Can you name 5 republicans that don't support Intelligent Design?

No, but I also can't name 5 that do. Your point?

435 SecondComing  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:27:39pm

John McCain is what Powell wants the GOP to be like, but he still didn't vote for him.

436 jorline  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:28:54pm

Hey...I'm finally trending up.

437 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:29:03pm

re: #434 tedzilla99

You're not being honest. You realize that every time Charles has posted that there is an anti-evolution bill being proposed in the various states, that it's always republicans doing os? You're aware that numerous state GOP platforms call for teaching ID? You're blind or dishonest- I'm not sure which at this point.

438 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:30:53pm

Forget about Powell.

It's clear that Powell is not the messenger a lot of conservatives want to hear from, but putting aside who is saying it, does his argument have some merit?

How should the GOP rebuild? By welcoming moderates and centrists and building a bigger tent? Or by narrowing what it means to be a "conservative" until only the pure remain? Who gets to define what makes a true conservative?

Forget about Powell.
Think about the issues.

439 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:32:31pm

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Powell is an Obama supporter.

440 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:32:44pm

Why is it that so many people want to accept a person at their word when it promotes their world view and ignore the same person when there is some opposition?

441 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:34:41pm

re: #431 Sharmuta

Can you name 5 republicans that don't support Intelligent Design?

I'd be happy for ONE who isn't instantly smeared with "RINO!" and "Not a True Republican!".

442 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:34:50pm

re: #437 Sharmuta

You're not being honest. You realize that every time Charles has posted that there is an anti-evolution bill being proposed in the various states, that it's always republicans doing os? You're aware that numerous state GOP platforms call for teaching ID? You're blind or dishonest- I'm not sure which at this point.

First, you assume that I read every thread that Charles posts. I don't. Second, you assume that I care about this issue. I don't. The ID/evolution debate doesn't affect me at all, so therefore I don't care about it. You asked me if I could name Republicans who don't support it, and I'm assuming you meant national politicians. I don't know of any. That's neither blind nor dishonest.

443 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:35:29pm

re: #438 Kenneth

Forget about Powell.

It's clear that Powell is not the messenger a lot of conservatives want to hear from, but putting aside who is saying it, does his argument have some merit?

How should the GOP rebuild? By welcoming moderates and centrists and building a bigger tent? Or by narrowing what it means to be a "conservative" until only the pure remain? Who gets to define what makes a true conservative?

Forget about Powell.
Think about the issues.

I say they make a big tent with strong poles. The poles that hold up the tent are the basic tenets/principles and they need to be unwavering. At the same time nobody should be purged out of the tent. Purging is what democrats do.
We're all in this fight together and we better start focusing on who the real threat is. When Custer's troopers were at the Little Bighorn I'll bet they dropped all their petty differences and concentrated on the Indians trying to wipe them out.

444 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:39:06pm

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

Why is it that so many people want to accept a person at their word when it promotes their world view and ignore the same person when there is some opposition?

You hit the nail square on the head there!

445 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:39:19pm

Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum
Tom Tancredo
Tim Pawlenty
Mark Levin
The OK state party platform
The MN state party platform
The IA state party platform
The OR state party platform
The AS state party platform
The TX state party platform
The LA state party platform

Shall I keep going?

446 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:40:45pm

re: #445 Sharmuta

Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum
Tom Tancredo
Tim Pawlenty
Mark Levin
The OK state party platform
The MN state party platform
The IA state party platform
The OR state party platform
The AS state party platform
The TX state party platform
The LA state party platform

Shall I keep going?

Please do, more in this instance actually is better.

447 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:41:50pm

re: #442 tedzilla99

You intentionally don't pay attention, and this leaves you in the position of being ignorant on an issue you claim the left is pushing when in fact it's the right that's pushing it because it's TRUE! The RR has their fangs in the party and is pushing social issues over fiscal issues. It's not my fault you're ignorant and I've called you on it.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to what Charles is saying when he says creationism is the GOP's big problem, huh?

448 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:44:35pm

re: #429 tedzilla99

So the Dems promote this Creationist bullshit? Charles is LYING with all the posts on the matter?

You say you don't care about the issue, and yet sure have enough interest to pass on proven lies.

449 Gus  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:45:58pm

re: #425 Yosemite Bill

A. The Gulf War was a coalition military engagement.
B. George H. W. Bush along with Kuwait initiated UN Resolution 660 with the UN Security Council at the onset of the invasion.
C. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense
D. General Norman Schwarzkopf was the Commander-in-Chief, US Central Command
E. President George HW Bush declared a cease fire on April 6, 1991.

The chain of command was far deeper than outlined here and involved thousands of officers, and civilian government officials. This was not "Colin Powell's war" by any means. No amount of wishful thinking nor revisionism will change the chain of events and Colin Powell was an integral part of the Gulf War effort but not the final word which also had to take into account international since it was a bilateral effort from the onset as promoted by the United State and Kuwait with UN Res. 660.

It is naive to think that a career officer like Powell "should have resigned" for a military fantasy that you now propose. This same sort of conspiracy and revisionist thinking has been applied to General Norman Schwarzkop for not "chasing" the Republican Guard into Baghdad. The situation was far more complicated and integrated than you represent.

450 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:47:00pm

re: #444 Kenneth

You hit the nail square on the head there!

I don't agree with the man's choices one bit, but until he takes the Specter step I won't say he is not a Republican.

451 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:49:10pm

re: #445 Sharmuta

Shall I keep going?

Did you not read that I don't care about the issue? The funny thing is, you're doing exactly what you accuse the RR of doing. You are hanging your vote on the social issues not on fiscal etc.

To me, it's more disturbing that dems [via the teachers union] want sex education in kindergarten, give calculators to 3rd graders, do not teach phonics, and want to have a monopoly over education rather than let vouchers and charter schools continue their success. Teaching evolution or not isn't as important to me as those.

The other interesting thing is you are missing a major difference between the parties and ideologies. If you think the pro ID stuff is wrong or crazy, fine - but it's being put to the voters via bill and party platforms. The left does their nonsense through the courts and by fiat, avoiding the voter.

We agree that the GOP needs help but to blame it on the social issues is letting your own bias cloud your vision. For example, if you would not vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate with a history of balanced budgets and tax cutting over the ID issue, then respectfully you are the problem, not the solution.

452 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:49:15pm

tedzilla- can you not see the folly in your thinking? "It's not a problem even though I'm not paying attention to it." That's illogical. Pay attention, and maybe you'd see exactly how much of a problem it is.

453 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:50:30pm

re: #450 FurryOldGuyJeans

I like what you wrote as a general phrase. I plan to remember it and use it. So true.

454 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:53:18pm

re: #451 tedzilla99

Really? You're not disturbed in the slightest that the republicans have elected officials likewise trying to undermine the courts, and using fiat to push religion into public schools? That they're trying to circumvent the scientific method and promote their dogma as science without any supporting evidence? It's no different than the left.

And again, you say you don't care about this issue. You should, because this issue is hurting the party. Unless, of course, you agree with the creationists......

455 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:55:43pm

re: #453 Kenneth

I like what you wrote as a general phrase. I plan to remember it and use it. So true.

Be my guest, royalty free even. ;)

456 jvic  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:56:01pm

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

Why is it that so many people want to accept a person at their word when it promotes their world view and ignore the same person when there is some opposition?

re: #422 BigPapa

What do we all think about Lieberman now?

Or Zell Miller. Do Republicans who repudiate Colin Powell also believe that Democrat Zell Miller should not have been allowed to address the 2004 GOP convention and criticize his own party?

Just asking...

457 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:56:08pm

re: #451 tedzilla99

Did you not read that I don't care about the issue? The funny thing is, you're doing exactly what you accuse the RR of doing. You are hanging your vote on the social issues not on fiscal etc.

And that's utter BS. Many of the creationists aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They're socialist republicans intent on pushing social agendas, not fiscal restraint.

458 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:58:10pm

re: #452 Sharmuta

tedzilla- can you not see the folly in your thinking? "It's not a problem even though I'm not paying attention to it." That's illogical. Pay attention, and maybe you'd see exactly how much of a problem it is.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that I don't care about the issue = I don't consider to be as big an issue as you and others do because there are bigger things to worry about. I also said that the dems are happily making this issue bigger than it is in order to get people to consider the GOP to be a bunch of religious nuts, and you are going along with it, which is your prerogative.

I also didn't say the dems are pushing it and the GOP is not - what I said was the dems in the media are happily promoting the GOP's efforts on this issue because it fits their demonizing agenda. Just like they are extremely interested in demonizing gay GOP politicians but preach tolerance for everyone else.

I on numerous occasions said that it is overstated which means that I know what it is, I am aware of it, I just think it's overblown. You find it to be extremely important, and that's fine, but just because we don't agree on its importance doesn't mean any of the things you said about me.

459 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:58:30pm

re: #457 Sharmuta

And that's utter BS. Many of the creationists aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They're socialist republicans intent on pushing social agendas, not fiscal restraint.

As much money to promote their Christian Theocracy is their agenda.

460 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:59:26pm

re: #458 tedzilla99

The media isn't introducing anti-evolution bills in states across this country. REPUBLICANS are.

461 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 1:59:48pm

re: #458 tedzilla99

So how do you know how serious the problem is if you willfully choose to not investigate the danger? Speak from knowledge, not ignorance.

462 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:00:57pm

tedzilla- do you accept the veracity of evolution?

463 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:01:04pm

re: #457 Sharmuta

And that's utter BS. Many of the creationists aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They're socialist republicans intent on pushing social agendas, not fiscal restraint.

That's your opinion, only.

re: #454 Sharmuta

Really? You're not disturbed in the slightest that the republicans have elected officials likewise trying to undermine the courts, and using fiat to push religion into public schools? That they're trying to circumvent the scientific method and promote their dogma as science without any supporting evidence? It's no different than the left.

And again, you say you don't care about this issue. You should, because this issue is hurting the party. Unless, of course, you agree with the creationists......

Bills and platforms are not fiat, you don't know what the word means. You have to vote on a bill or a platform. That's the democracy thing.

464 iLikeCandy  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:02:22pm

re: #186 Charles


He was also greatly turned off by the "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" crowd and the Nirthers.

But somehow he accommodated Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Aside from the specifics, how clueless is it to support McCain's opponent because some fringe extremists threw their lot in with McCain despite his repudiation of them?

I'm not impressed with Colin Powell's reasoning and I'm sticking with Dick Cheney. I've never seen Cheney act particularly exclusionary. And I'd like to learn more about Liz. I have an idea I could back her for public office.

465 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:02:33pm

re: #463 tedzilla99

Yes- they are using fiat by taking it to individual school boards like in Texas.

466 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:02:46pm

re: #463 tedzilla99

So once again you speak from ignorance of the issues, and parse meanings to arrive at your preconceived conclusions.

467 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:03:24pm

re: #460 Sharmuta

The media isn't introducing anti-evolution bills in states across this country. REPUBLICANS are.

OK now I know you're not reading what I write. No problem.

468 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:03:32pm

re: #465 Sharmuta

Yes- they are using fiat by taking it to individual school boards like in Texas.

SHHH! Don't confuse him with the facts, Sharm. It might upset his world view.

469 Kenneth  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:03:45pm

re: #456 jvic

Or Zell Miller. Do Republicans who repudiate Colin Powell also believe that Democrat Zell Miller should not have been allowed to address the 2004 GOP convention and criticize his own party?

Just asking...

Oh goody... I get to use it already:


"Why is it that so many people want to accept a person at their word when it promotes their world view and ignore the same person when there is some opposition?" - FurryOldGuyJeans

Thanks.

470 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:03:53pm

re: #411 solomonpanting

Sorry, that was supposed to be an "up." I just "upped" it - hopefully that will cancel it out.

471 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:05:29pm

re: #469 Kenneth

My pleasure. :)

Now if only it gets me more karma. *sigh* ;)

472 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:05:35pm

re: #467 tedzilla99

Yes- I've read repeatedly that it's the left and the msm pushing the idea that the RR is in control of the party.

I've also read repeatedly that you don't care about this issue, so that means you're ignorant, and not worth discussing the matter with any more because you readily admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're just a victim of the msm. I read you loud and clear.

473 DistantThunder  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:06:30pm

Powell has never answered the question of why specifically he voted for Obama, when McCain was Powell's ideal moderate Republican candidate. I don't trust someone who claims to be a core member of a party but votes for the opposite party.
I want to ask Powell: In this ultra-dangerous world, when the stakes couldn't be higher, why did you feel good about handing the reins of government to a man who has zero foreign policy experience, and zero military experience, not to mention zero economic experience, and zero business experience.

We have a friend who works at one of the main agencies - and he said that they get orders from the administration on Friday that the new emphasis is going to be A. Then on Monday they get new orders that the emphasis is going to be Z. He said that many are saying: "If this is how it's going to be, we're not sticking around. We don't need this."

474 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:07:45pm

It's fiat to stack a school board with creationist appointees as patronage to particular minority groups even though that's not what the voters who elected you really wanted.

475 DistantThunder  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:07:56pm

re: #458 tedzilla99

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that I don't care about the issue = I don't consider to be as big an issue as you and others do because there are bigger things to worry about. I also said that the dems are happily making this issue bigger than it is in order to get people to consider the GOP to be a bunch of religious nuts, and you are going along with it, which is your prerogative.

I also didn't say the dems are pushing it and the GOP is not - what I said was the dems in the media are happily promoting the GOP's efforts on this issue because it fits their demonizing agenda. Just like they are extremely interested in demonizing gay GOP politicians but preach tolerance for everyone else.

I on numerous occasions said that it is overstated which means that I know what it is, I am aware of it, I just think it's overblown. You find it to be extremely important, and that's fine, but just because we don't agree on its importance doesn't mean any of the things you said about me.

So right: I saw Mark Foley's old interview trotted out on msnbc on predator stings. I thought why is his face in the news....oh, it's msnbc....very few actually republicans in trouble right now...so let's dredge up the old ones.

476 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:10:44pm

How in the world is pushing religion into public school science classes being fiscally responsible? How is pushing religion onto other people's children smaller, less intrusive government?

You say it's the msm pushing this meme, when it's just not true. Republicans from coast to coast are introducing these bills, not the media.

Fisc-cons are not served by this agenda. If you think we are served well by it- please explain how.

477 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:10:49pm

re: #474 Thanos

It's fiat to stack a school board with creationist appointees as patronage to particular minority groups even though that's not what the voters who elected you really wanted.

Did you mean Minority or Ministry groups? I think both apply.

478 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:11:01pm

re: #457 Sharmuta

And that's utter BS. Many of the creationists aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They're socialist republicans intent on pushing social agendas, not fiscal restraint.

Except, of course, the evidence doesn't really support that. You can say what you want about Tom Coburn's social views (and I'll probably agree with you), but his record on fiscal restraint is a hell of a lot better than Arlen Specter's. You can say what you want about Mark Sanford's social views (again, I'll probably agree with you), but his stances on fiscal issues compare damn favorably to Colin Powell's.

479 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:12:38pm

re: #478 Bill Dalasio

Since when did MANY suddenly change to mean ALL?

480 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:13:00pm

re: #478 Bill Dalasio

Except, of course, the evidence doesn't really support that. You can say what you want about Tom Coburn's social views (and I'll probably agree with you), but his record on fiscal restraint is a hell of a lot better than Arlen Specter's. You can say what you want about Mark Sanford's social views (again, I'll probably agree with you), but his stances on fiscal issues compare damn favorably to Colin Powell's.

You know who accepts evolution and has a strong record against pork spending?

John McCain. What a RINO, huh?

481 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:16:02pm

re: #480 Sharmuta

You know who accepts evolution and has a strong record against pork spending?

John McCain. What a RINO, huh?

Well, dammit! Time to throw the bum outta the party!

/ is it sarcasm, or is it memorex?

482 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:17:00pm

re: #466 FurryOldGuyJeans

So once again you speak from ignorance of the issues, and parse meanings to arrive at your preconceived conclusions.

Look, you can call me names all you want, I'm used to the groupthink mentality here. I have not said that I agree or disagree with the issue, you cannot find that anywhere. I merely said that I don't find it to be important enough to wring my hands about, and I find other things to be more important to concern myself with - and I listed them, as far as schools go. If we disagree, fine - I don't care about that or my karma rating. I also said, generally, that while the issue is disagreeable to you, at least they are doing it in the arena of ideas, where the voters have a say. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, just that I prefer that ideas go to the people, no matter if I agree or not. If I didn't accurately cross every T in each case, fine, I was speaking generally. Again, call your names, but you're not reading what I write.

I also never said that the GOP was blameless in this issue, but I did say that the dems love it and promote it to paint the GOP as religious nuts. Now, let's use some logic here - if I find the dem's strategery to be a problem, then aren't we on the same page to an extent? I would rather the dems try to fight us on real issues not on this stuff, but they won't. And if you concentrate on it like they are, then you are helping them.

But, you have moved the discussion away from the issues and to me personally - which means that the discussion is over, or at least my part in it.

483 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:18:47pm

re: #476 Sharmuta

Is there a compilation somewhere, on another thread perhaps, of the public schools that have adopted ID/Creationism, etc. as part of their science curriculum?

484 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:18:51pm

re: #482 tedzilla99

Groupthink mentality. You sure have the wrong place.

But continue speaking from ignorance on an issue, sure shows how smart you are. I won't be stopping you.

485 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:19:19pm

re: #480 Sharmuta

You know who accepts evolution and has a strong record against pork spending?

John McCain. What a RINO, huh?

You're right. Of course, Mr. Powell decided to support his opponent.

486 Yosemite Bill  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:20:14pm

#449 - Gus 802 I am fully aware of the political/ coalition factors in the Gulf War. And yes it would be too much to expect for a political animal like Powell to do the right thing when it required personal sacrifice in place of expediency.
Finishing the R Guard would not have required "chasing them into Baghdad." They had the R Guard in the open and in full retreat on the "highway of death" and did NOT finish the job ! Would the R Guard been 100% destroyed ? No. Would they have been nearly as lethal if Bush/ Powell had more G. S. Patton/ W.T. Sherman in them ? Absolutely not. Would the Officers and men that remained of the R Guard gotten the message that the were nastier things awaiting them than a P.O.' d Saddam ? Absolutely.

487 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:20:39pm

re: #482 tedzilla99

Oh, and YOU made you the issue by pontificating on something you repeatedly said you have no interest in nor any extensive knowledge about.

488 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:20:44pm

re: #482 tedzilla99

But you're not being intellectually honest! The best way to take away the dems talking point is to stop promoting this anti-science agenda. That's not being on the same page with the dems- that's trying to help my party be better. We don't need luddites.

Again- it's not intellectually honest to not be able to concede a point to an opponent when they're correct. Fighting against it just makes you look foolish.

489 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:22:37pm

re: #472 Sharmuta

Yes- I've read repeatedly that it's the left and the msm pushing the idea that the RR is in control of the party.

I've also read repeatedly that you don't care about this issue, so that means you're ignorant, and not worth discussing the matter with any more because you readily admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're just a victim of the msm. I read you loud and clear.

WRONG! I know a lot about a lot of issues but recognize that some of them don't affect me enough to overlook more important things! I don't want to be accused of wanting a theocracy just because I vote GOP, that's my point!

I know plenty about the ID/evolution debate, and just because you're all bent about it doesn't mean I have to be as well. You can call me ignorant all you want, but we just disagree on the importance of the issue, and if you can't recognize that without calling me names, then you are the one who's either ignorant or not in control of your arguments.

490 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:23:32pm

re: #483 moonstone

Is there a compilation somewhere, on another thread perhaps, of the public schools that have adopted ID/Creationism, etc. as part of their science curriculum?

The ID bills continue to fail, but the issue is the republicans keep pushing it anyways.

The state of Louisiana is the only state with ID laws on the books. This will be challenged in court.

I have to go do some grocery shopping, so I'll be gone for a little while. Feel free to use the tag feature to do some more research on the subject, though.

491 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:24:03pm

re: #486 Yosemite Bill

Were you in the military during the first Gulf War? I was, and because of my position and job I had more than an inkling of what the orders were being passed on to the troops. Whole scale slaughter of retreating troops was not one of those orders.

492 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:24:11pm

(sticking my head up for a moment)

Hey gang, I've read through tedzilla99's posts on this subject in this thread, and ... while I don't agree with everything he's saying ... I do believe he has some good points. It's a matter of emphasis.

Perhaps the discussion's become a bit polarized?

Just respectfully sayin'

/my stance vis a vis teaching I.D. as science is public record here

493 Gus  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:24:32pm

re: #486 Yosemite Bill

Political animal? That's how you characterize Colin Powell? He had many opportunities in the past to pursue a political career yet he chose not to for a variety of reasons. This include the possibility of running for the office of the president. That in itself is the antithesis of a political animal.

494 Jim D  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:25:28pm

re: #489 tedzilla99

Why isn't the first amendment an important issue to you?

495 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:26:11pm

re: #487 FurryOldGuyJeans

Oh, and YOU made you the issue by pontificating on something you repeatedly said you have no interest in nor any extensive knowledge about.

I said neither of those things - I said I don't care about the issue enough to read every post about it. For example, I know exactly what American Idol is, who the judges are, and what network it's on, but never watch it and don't know who the finalists were. So either I know nothing about it or I do...pick one.

You have demonstrated a severe lack of reading comprehension.

496 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:26:49pm

re: #492 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You nailed it Brat. These folks feel as though the ID/evolution debate is the defining question of our time. We've got much bigger fish to fry.

497 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:27:03pm

re: #489 tedzilla99

You want your Martyr cookie now, or will you wait for some Self-Righteous milk as well?

498 Gus  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:28:01pm

re: #497 FurryOldGuyJeans

You want your Martyr cookie now, or will you wait for some Self-Righteous milk as well?

This thread has brought out a lot of sleepers.

499 Altermite  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:28:21pm

re: #496 brockton808

You nailed it Brat. These folks feel as though the ID/evolution debate is the defining question of our time. We've got much bigger fish to fry.

I have trouble seeing how the systematic corruption of science and science education in this country can not be a top issue, especially when religious involvement in government policy is the force behind it.

500 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:28:30pm

re: #479 FurryOldGuyJeans

Since when did MANY suddenly change to mean ALL?

If you want me to I'll be happy to go on. It's not that difficult.

501 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:28:42pm

re: #489 tedzilla99

Again- tell me how pushing anti-science legislation helps the GOP. Tell me how pushing religion onto other people's kids is less intrusive government. Tell me how when people who push this agenda are held up as rising stars of the party, the left and msm are wrong to say we're a religious party.

I don't want a theocracy either. I want those who do want a theocracy out of my party, because they don't belong. If they want to use the power of the government to force people to be what they're not, they belong on the other side of the aisle. You don't even want to admit they're a problem, instead you blame the media. I choose to blame the root source, which is the luddites in the GOP.

502 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:29:21pm

re: #498 Gus 802

This thread has brought out a lot of sleepers.

And they are all so predictable.

503 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:29:23pm

Back latter.

504 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:30:26pm

re: #496 brockton808

You nailed it Brat. These folks feel as though the ID/evolution debate is the defining question of our time. We've got much bigger fish to fry.

And (respectfully) I wouldn't go near so far as to say that.
All I was saying is, the discussion might have become too emotional.

It's a damned important subject to me, as it is to Sharm and Furry, but I can see tedzilla99's point too. Maybe it's a bit wrong-headed, or not, but it's not irrational.

505 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:30:52pm

Remember the urgency?

Youtube Video

And how much has been actually spent so far? Less than $100 million, hardly stimulative, yet we're now on the hook for another $trillion in debt, plus interest. How many Republicans voted for it? Three, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter.

/and remember, it would have only taken two more Senate votes to kill it

506 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:31:00pm

re: #500 Bill Dalasio

If you want me to I'll be happy to go on. It's not that difficult.

By all means, do so, but SOME still doesn't equate to ALL. The GOP does have a problem with promoting anti-science.

507 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:31:23pm

One last thing-

I don't disagree that there are bigger issues to deal with. Perhaps we're not the ones you should be telling that to. Perhaps the ones who need to hear it are the ones pushing religion into civics?

508 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:31:36pm

re: #501 Sharmuta

Again- tell me how pushing anti-science legislation helps the GOP. Tell me how pushing religion onto other people's kids is less intrusive government. Tell me how when people who push this agenda are held up as rising stars of the party, the left and msm are wrong to say we're a religious party.

I don't want a theocracy either. I want those who do want a theocracy out of my party, because they don't belong. If they want to use the power of the government to force people to be what they're not, they belong on the other side of the aisle. You don't even want to admit they're a problem, instead you blame the media. I choose to blame the root source, which is the luddites in the GOP.

For the last time, and this is the last time, I have never said that it does. I have never said that it's not a problem either. If you can't read what I write then I can't help you.

509 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:32:49pm

re: #497 FurryOldGuyJeans

Furry,

With LOTS of respect, might you want to take a deep breath?

/Neither of you are innocent

510 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:33:22pm

re: #505 Killian Bundy

Remember the urgency?


[Video]And how much has been actually spent so far? Less than $100 million, hardly stimulative, yet we're now on the hook for another $trillion in debt, plus interest. How many Republicans voted for it? Three, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter.

/and remember, it would have only taken two more Senate votes to kill it

Urgency was the word so Obama could take a trip somewhere. The debt and deficit are the key, not the actual spending. Why spend money you can embezzle away?

511 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:33:45pm

re: #507 Sharmuta

One last thing-

I don't disagree that there are bigger issues to deal with. Perhaps we're not the ones you should be telling that to. Perhaps the ones who need to hear it are the ones pushing religion into civics?

I agree with that.

512 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:33:47pm

re: #508 tedzilla99

Perhaps the ones who need to hear what you're saying are the ones pushing religion, huh? Because it's not me. I'm pushing for the balanced budget amendment. You know, a fiscal issue?

513 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:33:52pm

re: #507 Sharmuta

One last thing-

I don't disagree that there are bigger issues to deal with. Perhaps we're not the ones you should be telling that to. Perhaps the ones who need to hear it are the ones pushing religion into civics?

Actually you do disagree, because my opinion is that there are bigger issues, and because you disagree with that, I'm ignorant and lacking in knowledge etc.

Enjoy the rest of your holiday.

514 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:33:56pm

re: #502 FurryOldGuyJeans

I think many readers of this blog are like me. We don't comment a whole lot if we generally agree with what everyone is saying. What would be the point?

We come out of the woodwork only when we disagree. Then we're down-dinged mercilessly for our non-compliance!

515 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:34:47pm

re: #477 FurryOldGuyJeans

Did you mean Minority or Ministry groups? I think both apply.

Good point, both

516 tedzilla99  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:35:27pm

re: #514 brockton808

I think many readers of this blog are like me. We don't comment a whole lot if we generally agree with what everyone is saying. What would be the point?

We come out of the woodwork only when we disagree. Then we're down-dinged mercilessly for our non-compliance!

Yeah I have almost 900 posts, been registered here a very long time, had a few hat tips, and I'm a predictable sleeper. Awesome!

517 jaunte  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:35:56pm

re: #514 brockton808

We come out of the woodwork only when we disagree. Then we're down-dinged mercilessly for our non-compliance!

It is painless, though. There's that.

518 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:36:57pm

fer cryin' out loud ... EVERYBODY take a deep breath

/furgettaboutit !

519 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:37:07pm

re: #514 brockton808

I think many readers of this blog are like me. We don't comment a whole lot if we generally agree with what everyone is saying. What would be the point?

We come out of the woodwork only when we disagree. Then we're down-dinged mercilessly for our non-compliance!

And I get downdinged because I speak up and out. I don't bother getting stressed with the fool karma thing. I am a cranky old coot, popular is not in my DNA.

520 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:37:13pm

re: #506 FurryOldGuyJeans

By all means, do so, but SOME still doesn't equate to ALL. The GOP does have a problem with promoting anti-science.

So, basically, what you're saying is that no amount of evidence I present will convince you that the moderates screaming the loudest about the social conservatives have been the quickest to knife fiscal constraint in the groin.

Fine. Whatever.

521 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:37:35pm

re: #514 brockton808

Can't help but notice you had nothing to say about morality not being exclusive to religion. Care to say anything about that, or did you agree with me?

522 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:37:49pm

One of the leading "Fiscal Conservatives" is Grover Norquist. During the Bush reign he and his gave us more Schaivo hysteria than fiscal restraint. At least I know the Dem's can't be trusted.

523 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:39:21pm

re: #519 FurryOldGuyJeans

I'm with you there brutha!

524 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:40:49pm

re: #514 brockton808

I think many readers of this blog are like me. We don't comment a whole lot if we generally agree with what everyone is saying. What would be the point?

We come out of the woodwork only when we disagree. Then we're down-dinged mercilessly for our non-compliance!

I encourage you to speak more often, I get downdinged a lot whenever I get into one of these threads because I'm not afraid to point out our flaws. I'm still doing ok however:

Karma: 16,409

Thanos

Web site URL:
[Link: www.noblesseoblige.org...]

Shadows stand tallest at the dusk and the dawn of the day

(Logged in)
Registered since: Apr 30, 2006 at 3:18 pm
No. of comments posted: 22,095
No. of links posted: 9,241

525 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:42:02pm

My problem with tedzilla's comments is he seems to think it's a false media generated talking point that the GOP is beholden to the religious right. It's not false if it's provable the RR does have it's claws into the party. The anti-science agenda shows this talking point to be true.

We can't fix the problem until we accept what the problem is. Denial doesn't help.

526 Randall Gross  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:44:19pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

All that he has to do is google "club for growth" + "discovery institute".

527 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:45:39pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

My problem with tedzilla's comments is he seems to think it's a false media generated talking point that the GOP is beholden to the religious right. It's not false if it's provable the RR does have it's claws into the party. The anti-science agenda shows this talking point to be true.

We can't fix the problem until we accept what the problem is. Denial doesn't help.

(poking my head up again)

I didn't pick up on a "false" meme in what he wrote -- at least not a strong and obvious one. Maybe I'm wrong.

528 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:46:24pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

My problem with tedzilla's comments is he seems to think it's a false media generated talking point that the GOP is beholden to the religious right. It's not false if it's provable the RR does have it's claws into the party. The anti-science agenda shows this talking point to be true.

We can't fix the problem until we accept what the problem is. Denial doesn't help.

And yes, the RR does have it's claws into the party.

529 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:48:40pm

re: #521 Sharmuta

I haven't responded because I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Please clarify.

530 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:48:43pm

It was the economy stupid. Obama ran against Bush.

/repeat the words hope and change endlessly and that's what the 2008 election was all about, and we lost

531 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:49:29pm

The problem back in the Bush era was that the media was labeling "RR RR RR RR RR RR RR" ad nauseum, when there were a LOT of other things going on.

The media despises any Christian who feels his/her religion strongly.

/yes, I specified "Christian"

532 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:49:53pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

I don't think he's saying it's false; rather that it's overblown. I'm sure there are also idiot Democrats on school boards proposing stupid things, but since the media probably agree with them, or because they are Democrats, or for whatever reason, it's not emphasized or even reported.

This is obviously a hot-button issue for you and for many on this thread; but it's not for Tedzilla, me, or probably many others, and I think that's all he's saying. I don't think the Republican party is in danger of being taken over by the social conservatives and I don't think these people that outrage you so are going to succeed in changing the public school curriculum.

However, if they did, I don't even think it would matter. Our local school system's fourth-grade social studies textbook devotes 16 paragraphs to Marilyn Monroe and one to Abraham Lincoln. Public schools are a lost cause as far as I'm concerned.

533 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:50:59pm

re: #524 Thanos

I'm also a bit nervous about being banned. I got into a similar discussion a few months back, and felt the heavy shadow of Stinky's stick over me.

I want to continue to be able to visit the site, so I often prefer to play it safe and just watch you guys. :)

534 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:51:23pm

re: #530 Killian Bundy

It was the economy stupid. Obama ran against Bush.

/repeat the words hope and change endlessly and that's what the 2008 election was all about, and we lost

Gonna have to kill you now. Can't have you spreading the truth about like that. ;)

535 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:52:19pm

re: #528 pre-Boomer Marine brat

And yes, the RR does have it's claws into the party.

Now where are those nail clippers when we need 'em?

536 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:53:20pm

re: #529 brockton808

I'll elaborate when I get back from my shopping trip. Trying to get out the door here.

re: #533 brockton808

Unless you're rude to your host or obviously dishonest, then there should be no fear of banning. Well- and calls for violence are bannable, but differences of opinion are not bannable offenses.

537 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:53:42pm

re: #532 moonstone

I don't think he's saying it's false; rather that it's overblown.

That was precisely his point, as I read it.
I disagree strongly, but don't find his opinion offensive.
He seems to (merely) have other hot-buttons.

/just sayin'

538 brockton808  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:55:33pm

re: #536 Sharmuta

Cool. Have a good trip!

539 NonNativeTexan  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:56:18pm

re: #525 Sharmuta

I believe the main reason for the difference of opinion here
is that many believe anti-evolution = anti-science.
Many Christians have a "theology bloc" when it comes to
evolution. However, the majority of Christians are not
against modern science, modern technology or modern
medicine.

540 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:56:36pm

re: #535 FurryOldGuyJeans

Now where are those nail clippers when we need 'em?

heh

I loved your comment about "cranky old coot". I guy I worked with (and with whom I have a close professional rapport) calls me a crab-ass.

541 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:57:53pm

re: #540 pre-Boomer Marine brat

heh

I loved your comment about "cranky old coot". I guy I worked with (and with whom I have a close professional rapport) calls me a crab-ass.

Need coffee
"A guy I worked with ..."

542 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:59:25pm

re: #540 pre-Boomer Marine brat

heh

I loved your comment about "cranky old coot". I guy I worked with (and with whom I have a close professional rapport) calls me a crab-ass.

I am well-aged wine vinegar. ;)

543 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 2:59:31pm

re: #539 NonNativeTexan

I believe the main reason for the difference of opinion here
is that many believe anti-evolution = anti-science.
Many Christians have a "theology bloc" when it comes to
evolution. However, the majority of Christians are not
against modern science, modern technology or modern
medicine.

Yeah. Yesterday, Shiplord mentioned petroleum geologists he worked with who were stout creationists.

544 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:00:22pm

re: #536 Sharmuta

Unless you're rude to your host or obviously dishonest, then there should be no fear of banning. Well- and calls for violence are bannable, but differences of opinion are not bannable offenses.

Oh- and obvious fascism usually gets one the stick.

Brock- if you'd like to learn more about the ideological foundation of this country, I recommend Dr Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions.

545 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:00:24pm

re: #542 FurryOldGuyJeans

I am well-aged wine vinegar. ;)

*grin*
May I steal that?
/I'm gonna see that guy later this week.

546 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:03:17pm

re: #545 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*grin*
May I steal that?
/I'm gonna see that guy later this week.

Be my guest, with my blessing, royalty free. :)

Twice now today in this very thread someone has wanted to use a quote of mine. Maybe I should start charging karma rent. ;)

547 Dad O' Blondes  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:05:56pm

McCain had a very good shot at beating Obama, until the stock market crashed, and Lehman Bros. filed for bankruptcy. The US Treasury Secretary, Bush - appointee Henry Paulson scared the bejezus out of people with his announcements proclaiming that unless the "People" ponied up a $Trillion or two, then we were all going to hell in a handbasket.

A scared America voted for Obama.

And since then, Republicans, generally, have acted like ninnies and fools. There has been an abdication of power and authority in the Republican party since Bush II ended. There are no leaders who can set the policy matters straight: that's why we end up with voodoo like creationism as a "platform plank" and a radio talk show headline issue.

.

548 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:06:07pm

re: #546 FurryOldGuyJeans

Be my guest, with my blessing, royalty free. :)

Twice now today in this very thread someone has wanted to use a quote of mine. Maybe I should start charging karma rent. ;)

I just paid with two up-dings.

/:D ... enjoy the tingle

549 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:07:43pm

re: #539 NonNativeTexan

I believe the main reason for the difference of opinion here
is that many believe anti-evolution = anti-science.
Many Christians have a "theology bloc" when it comes to
evolution. However, the majority of Christians are not
against modern science, modern technology or modern
medicine.

Normally, that's the main reason, but today I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of Creationism. The argument is about the soul of the Republican party. Some on this forum want to get rid of the social conservatives, while others want to purge the RINOs.

If nothing else, we are proof that the Democrats do a MUCH better job of managing (ignoring, minimizing?) the extreme elements of their party.

550 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:08:03pm

re: #520 Bill Dalasio

Gee, let me see here, is it let the government "bust the bank" or say hello to a Christian theocracy?

I go with neither. Both issues threaten to destroy the Republic.

551 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:08:20pm

re: #547 Dad O' Blondes

McCain had a very good shot at beating Obama, until the stock market crashed, and Lehman Bros. filed for bankruptcy. The US Treasury Secretary, Bush - appointee Henry Paulson scared the bejezus out of people with his announcements proclaiming that unless the "People" ponied up a $Trillion or two, then we were all going to hell in a handbasket.

A scared America voted for Obama.

And since then, Republicans, generally, have acted like ninnies and fools. There has been an abdication of power and authority in the Republican party since Bush II ended. There are no leaders who can set the policy matters straight: that's why we end up with voodoo like creationism as a "platform plank" and a radio talk show headline issue.

.

You nailed it.

552 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:08:51pm

re: #548 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I just paid with two up-dings.

/:D ... enjoy the tingle

Do I look like Chrissy Matthews?!? ;)

553 Altermite  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:09:25pm

re: #549 moonstone

Normally, that's the main reason, but today I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of Creationism. The argument is about the soul of the Republican party. Some on this forum want to get rid of the social conservatives, while others want to purge the RINOs.

If nothing else, we are proof that the Democrats do a MUCH better job of managing (ignoring, minimizing?) the extreme elements of their party.

I'm of the opinion that NOT PURGING is part of the edge democrats have had over past elections. They don't purge, except in high profile cases, and they avoid targeting the electorate as a whole during purges.

554 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:11:38pm

re: #550 FurryOldGuyJeans

Gee, let me see here, is it let the government "bust the bank" or say hello to a Christian theocracy?

I go with neither. Both issues threaten to destroy the Republic.

A Christian Theocracy?!?! Please tell me you're joking. Or enlighten me as to the series of events you can foresee that will result in the most hated religion in the U.S. being imposed on us.

555 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:13:45pm

re: #554 moonstone

A Christian Theocracy?!?! Please tell me you're joking. Or enlighten me as to the series of events you can foresee that will result in the most hated religion in the U.S. being imposed on us.

How much do you know of the Discovery Institute's ultimate agenda?

556 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:13:53pm

re: #552 FurryOldGuyJeans

Do I look like Chrissy Matthews?!? ;)

(I should'a KNOWN that was comin')

557 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:15:51pm

re: #553 Altermite

I'm of the opinion that NOT PURGING is part of the edge democrats have had over past elections. They don't purge, except in high profile cases, and they avoid targeting the electorate as a whole during purges.

The GOP in the past didn't have to purge because the crazies used to leave voluntarily when core principles of fiscal responsibility and reduced government were held to. Now the crazies stay because they can see getting their brand of large religion-based government enacted.

558 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:16:19pm

re: #553 Altermite

I'm of the opinion that NOT PURGING is part of the edge democrats have had over past elections. They don't purge, except in high profile cases, and they avoid targeting the electorate as a whole during purges.

I agree completely, but apparently you and I are not as "pure-minded" as many others here. I guess a lot of people don't want Republicans to win if it means they have to be associated with "those people," but the result will be Democrats winning.

559 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:16:49pm

re: #554 moonstone

A Christian Theocracy?!?! Please tell me you're joking. Or enlighten me as to the series of events you can foresee that will result in the most hated religion in the U.S. being imposed on us.

Start here

This is "old news" on LGF

560 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:18:39pm

re: #558 moonstone

I agree completely, but apparently you and I are not as "pure-minded" as many others here. I guess a lot of people don't want Republicans to win if it means they have to be associated with "those people," but the result will be Democrats winning.

I never said I was pure, why else would I be a staunch Independent Conservative? ;)

561 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:19:54pm

re: #555 FurryOldGuyJeans

How much do you know of the Discovery Institute's ultimate agenda?

The Discovery Institute is not the Republican Party. They may be voting Republican, they may be influencing some Republicans, but there are also many fringe organizations on the left that try to influence Democrats.

562 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:19:54pm

re: #550 FurryOldGuyJeans

Gee, let me see here, is it let the government "bust the bank" or say hello to a Christian theocracy?

I go with neither. Both issues threaten to destroy the Republic.

And you're arguing to isolate the views of the moderates who agree to bust the bank with as much vigor as you are social conservatives. Oh, wait....

563 jvic  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:19:59pm

re: #550 FurryOldGuyJeans

Gee, let me see here, is it let the government "bust the bank" or say hello to a Christian theocracy?

I go with neither. Both issues threaten to destroy the Republic.

How about busting the bank to buy votes for a theocratic agenda?

FOGJ, may I introduce you to President Huckabee...

564 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:20:02pm

re: #559 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Start here

This is "old news" on LGF

Oooh, an actual link! Thankees! :)

565 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:21:05pm

re: #563 jvic

How about busting the bank to buy votes for a theocratic agenda?

FOGJ, may I introduce you to President Huckabee...

Not in YOUR worst nightmares, let alone mine, thank you very much.

566 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:23:08pm

re: #561 moonstone

The Discovery Institute is not the Republican Party. They may be voting Republican, they may be influencing some Republicans, but there are also many fringe organizations on the left that try to influence Democrats.

Yet MANY Republicans support the agenda of the DI and what they promote.

Around and around we go.

567 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:23:28pm

re: #565 FurryOldGuyJeans

Not in YOUR worst nightmares, let alone mine, thank you very much.

For the 20 minutes or so during the primaries that I thought Huckabee might win, I realized that I would have to vote Democrat for president for the first time in my life! (And I detest both Hillary and Obama with every fiber of my being!)

568 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:24:11pm

re: #562 Bill Dalasio

And you're arguing to isolate the views of the moderates who agree to bust the bank with as much vigor as you are social conservatives. Oh, wait....

By Jove, I think they've got it!

569 kaymad  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:25:53pm

I've got to side with Cheney on this one, McCain is exactly the kind of candidate moderates were suppose to like, yet Powell endorsed Obama. Powell can take a flying leap, I began disliking him when he wouldn't announce what party he was a member of, I disliked him even more over the Plame mess, the leak came from his office and he knew it. Hopefully he'll be as loyal to the democrats.

570 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:26:08pm

re: #567 moonstone

For the 20 minutes or so during the primaries that I thought Huckabee might win, I realized that I would have to vote Democrat for president for the first time in my life! (And I detest both Hillary and Obama with every fiber of my being!)

Given that at the time neither Hillary nor Obama was the front runner, in spite of the media, if Huck had been the candidate I would have likely done what I did earlier, vote 3rd party ala Perot.

571 jvic  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:27:15pm

re: #565 FurryOldGuyJeans

Not in YOUR worst nightmares, let alone mine, thank you very much.

sigh

My worst nightmares keep turning into the lesser of two evils.

572 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:29:01pm

re: #570 FurryOldGuyJeans

Who was the front runner? I always thought it was a given that it would be Hillary until Obama came along.

573 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:29:16pm

re: #571 jvic

sigh

My worst nightmares keep turning into the lesser of two evils.

Life is unfair. I just deal with what I am given, not try to transmute it to my liking.

574 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:30:28pm

re: #572 moonstone

Who was the front runner? I always thought it was a given that it would be Hillary until Obama came along.

I ignored the media telling me who was going to win. I wait until there are actually votes cast.

575 Dark_Falcon  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:32:29pm

re: #569 kaymad

I've got to side with Cheney on this one, McCain is exactly the kind of candidate moderates were suppose to like, yet Powell endorsed Obama. Powell can take a flying leap, I began disliking him when he wouldn't announce what party he was a member of, I disliked him even more over the Plame mess, the leak came from his office and he knew it. Hopefully he'll be as loyal to the democrats.

Agreed. Kiss off, Powell, and take the jackass you rode in on with you!

576 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:33:37pm

re: #568 FurryOldGuyJeans

Well, we've already established that Mr. Powell is one of the moderates for whom the breaking of the bank is okey-dokey. It's funny, though, in reviewing your comments on this thread, I don't seem to find any objections to him.......

577 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:34:31pm

re: #575 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. Kiss off, Powell, and take the jackass you rode in on with you!

Until he takes the Specter step I won't say he isn't a Republican.

Doesn't mean I like what he stands for or says. I certainly don't want to see his views become the planks of the GOP.

578 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:35:42pm

re: #576 Bill Dalasio

Well, we've already established that Mr. Powell is one of the moderates for whom the breaking of the bank is okey-dokey. It's funny, though, in reviewing your comments on this thread, I don't seem to find any objections to him.......

I don't object to him being a Republican, is not my place to decide, his views and outlook I have lots to disagree with.

579 jvic  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:39:27pm

re: #573 FurryOldGuyJeans

Life is unfair. I just deal with what I am given, not try to transmute it to my liking.

IMO Shaw is too glib to be completely right, but he's not completely wrong:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
580 Bill Dalasio  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:40:47pm

re: #578 FurryOldGuyJeans

I don't object to him being a Republican, is not my place to decide, his views and outlook I have lots to disagree with.

Again, though, for some reason you seem strangely less vociferous in your objections...

581 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:46:02pm

re: #580 Bill Dalasio

Again, though, for some reason you seem strangely less vociferous in your objections...

I'm a cranky old coot, not a FNC commentator or a Michael Savage clone. I get loud and obnoxious when the situation fits.

582 kaymad  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:46:17pm

re: #578 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yeah, but notice he is the new spokesperson for the republican party? Could it be because he stuck it to the repugs, so now he's a media darling? That's what bugs me the most, he endorses Obama, a far left candidate, now he's our new republican spokesperson. Can you think of a prominent democrat who endorsed a republican and suddenly became the new face of the Democrat party? Lieberman doesn't count because he was kicked out...which reminds me, democrats kick out members that don't toe the line and look where there at. They own both houses and the Presidency, so I really don't want to hear about how we aren't big tent enough.

583 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:47:05pm

re: #579 jvic

Never accuse me of being reasonable! I'm a cranky old coot! ;)

584 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:49:19pm

re: #582 kaymad

For this Independent Conservative Powell is not the face of the GOP, pure and simple. What the media does is not within my control, and that is yet another thing to not like about the man's politics.

585 quickjustice  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:53:54pm

One of the important points already has been made upthread: Powell supported Obama ONLY because he was black. This demonstrates how shallow and opportunistic Powell is.

Second, the GOP already has tried to win with a "moderate" candidate named McCain. How'd that work out for you "moderate" Republicans?

My point is simple: The GOP has become disconnected from its base, and from middle class working families. It needs new ideas that appeal to those voters, and that are NOT Democrat-lite. An example with respect to reforming health care here: [Link: www.manhattan-institute.org...]

586 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 25, 2009 3:55:48pm

re: #585 quickjustice

Powell supported Obama ONLY because he was black.

And you know this ... how, exactly? Powell himself denies it, in the video above. Did you watch it?

587 retief_99  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:01:04pm

A few years ago I used to say I was a Republican but I would vote across party lines if I felt a Democrat would do a better job. I can no longer make that statement, at least when it comes to a Federal election. The Democrat majority is going to places I can not follow. I am not able to simply discard my principles for the sake of winning an election for my party. I have always been instilled with the notion if something is wrong you must stand against it, remain true to your principles. I know there are many good and decent Democrats but the party's leaders are taking the country down a path that I feel is destructive and we will live to regret it. I will stick to my principles even if it means that elections are lost. If you so easily abandon what you feel is right and support what you believe is wrong, what are you then? At least when I look into the mirror every morning I will like the person I see looking back at me.


Mark

588 Dark_Falcon  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:01:12pm

re: #585 quickjustice

One of the important points already has been made upthread: Powell supported Obama ONLY because he was black. This demonstrates how shallow and opportunistic Powell is.

Second, the GOP already has tried to win with a "moderate" candidate named McCain. How'd that work out for you "moderate" Republicans?

My point is simple: The GOP has become disconnected from its base, and from middle class working families. It needs new ideas that appeal to those voters, and that are NOT Democrat-lite. An example with respect to reforming health care here: [Link: www.manhattan-institute.org...]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The key would be keeping the loons away the mike at the rallies we'd want to hold supporting the plan. I'm not a huge 'Tea Party' fan but they have their uses and drumming up policy support is their most important use.

589 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:11:29pm

re: #587 retief_99

A few years ago I used to say I was a Republican but I would vote across party lines if I felt a Democrat would do a better job. I can no longer make that statement, at least when it comes to a Federal election. The Democrat majority is going to places I can not follow. I am not able to simply discard my principles for the sake of winning an election for my party. I have always been instilled with the notion if something is wrong you must stand against it, remain true to your principles. I know there are many good and decent Democrats but the party's leaders are taking the country down a path that I feel is destructive and we will live to regret it. I will stick to my principles even if it means that elections are lost. If you so easily abandon what you feel is right and support what you believe is wrong, what are you then? At least when I look into the mirror every morning I will like the person I see looking back at me.

Mark

The trick is being honest with yourself when you see the party that is supposed to be upholding your core values fail to do so.

If fiscal conservatism is a core value then you should be excoriating most of the Republicans currently in office for their actions over the past 9 years.

If individual liberty is a core value then you should be calling out social conservatives who are trying to usher in a social nanny state.

If protecting the Constitution is important to you then you should be exposing those in the party that would subvert it to bring Intelligent design into public school classrooms.

By demanding better of the party I support I am not giving credence to the other side. And trying to find ways to appeal to the growing number of Independents is not becoming "Democrat-lite". It's just where we find ourself at this precise moment.

590 nyc redneck  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:17:51pm

powell voted for o.
if powell really wanted a watered down amicable to all, nice reach across the aisle person, he had the perfect candidate in mccain.
why didn't he vote for he exact type of ideal republican candidate he is now pushing.
why would powell, as a republican vote for the most leftist socialist candidate to ever run for the office of president.
powell is not a conservative. his foundation is weak. he is confused.

591 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:19:31pm

Brockton- my point earlier was that it seemed you were trying to get me to say that Judeo-Christian values were the foundation upon which this country was formed. I disagree. This country was formed on Enlightenment principles. This is not to say religion didn't have any affect upon our Founders or the population- they did, but not to the extent that when researching Enlightenment principles it becomes obvious this was what drove our Founders to form the country we have today.

My other point in bringing up morality/religion is that there are irreligious people who are very moral, and very immoral people who are religious. Religion isn't always the best indicator of one's morality.

Without bringing religion into play, one can still defend morality based on Enlightenment principles that it's immoral to infringe upon the rights of others. Murder would be immoral because you're denying another person's right to live. Theft is immoral because you're violating another person's right to their property. Sure- these things are also laid out in the Ten Commandments, but there are moral issues/law that predate the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with a society being moral, it's that morality has grey areas in some instances. While some might find it immoral for two men to have sex with each other, others don't really care what they're doing provided they're both consenting adults. In recent threads concerning the war on drugs, some have said drug use is immoral, but others feel that if no other laws are being violated, then it's not the business of anyone if people want to consume intoxicants.

I subscribe to the school of thought that supports individual rights- that is, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. The issue we're having here with many people on the left and the right is that they don't understand the American form of government wasn't designed to force moral issues such as these upon the people. There's obvious morality (murder, theft, rape) and personal morality. I may think it's wrong to give little children soda, but it's not my right to force this upon others. This is where the ID debate comes into play.

It is not the place of elected officials to make the electorate what they wish they had instead of accepting the electorate as it is. When elected officials advocate pushing their ideas of personal morality onto the public, there will be push back. It is not the place of elected officials to undermine the rights of parents concerning religion by pushing their notions of Christianity into public schools. The law reflects our values, not the other way around. What the ID movement is about is the inverse. They want our morality to reflect the law.

I hope this was enough of a clarification for you. Cheers.

592 Gus  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:21:50pm

re: #585 quickjustice

One of the important points already has been made upthread: Powell supported Obama ONLY because he was black. This demonstrates how shallow and opportunistic Powell is.

Second, the GOP already has tried to win with a "moderate" candidate named McCain. How'd that work out for you "moderate" Republicans?

My point is simple: The GOP has become disconnected from its base, and from middle class working families. It needs new ideas that appeal to those voters, and that are NOT Democrat-lite. An example with respect to reforming health care here: [Link: www.manhattan-institute.org...]

That Colin Powell voted for Barack Obama is specious statement unsupported by fact. Powell has commented otherwise and if he only voted based on race he would have supported previous candidates on racial lines and supported Jesse Jackson for example. It minimizes the political appeal that many found with Barack Obama (I say that as one that opposes Obama) and opens the party up for future failures by disregarding his appeal. In essence it is a reverse race card. The same could be applied across the board and one could say that people voted for McCain because he was white. Neither argument is useful or provable and simply poisons the well and leads to uncivil behavior.

You deride McCain as a failure of the GOP to try out a moderate Republican. This loss was a foregone conclusion towards the end of the campaign. It's questionable since his running mate was not a moderate and the overall package well into right of center. In addition, the Manhattan Project article you mentioned was written by Douglas Holtz-Eakin who happened to be the "former chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign."

593 pink freud  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:22:01pm

re: #590 nyc redneck

powell voted for o.
if powell really wanted a watered down amicable to all, nice reach across the aisle person, he had the perfect candidate in mccain.
why didn't he vote for he exact type of ideal republican candidate he is now pushing.
why would powell, as a republican vote for the most leftist socialist candidate to ever run for the office of president.
powell is not a conservative. his foundation is weak. he is confused.

Good points, nyc.

Powell is a lightweight, someone I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him, no matter his politics. He's what I call an opportunistic whiffle-whaffler, a perennial finger-in-the-wind spineless politician. Spineless, not a leader bone in his body.

/nice to see you, nyc redneck. :-)

594 retief_99  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:23:19pm

re: #589 Bloodnok

I agree, as stated before in these posts, we ran a moderate candidate in the last election and he lost. Sufficient numbers of Republicans have lost so that now both houses of congress are also controlled by democrats. So, how would we have been less well off to have run more conservative candidates? We could not have ended up with a much worse result. The Democrats are now busily proving the theory of the tyranny of absolute power.

Mark

595 Bloodnok  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:23:41pm

re: #591 Sharmuta

It is not the place of elected officials to make the electorate what they wish they had instead of accepting the electorate as it is.

+1776!

596 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:23:59pm

re: #595 Bloodnok

Heehee!

597 nyc redneck  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:29:03pm

re: #593 pink freud

Good points, nyc.

Powell is a lightweight, someone I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him, no matter his politics. He's what I call an opportunistic whiffle-whaffler, a perennial finger-in-the-wind spineless politician. Spineless, not a leader bone in his body.

/nice to see you, nyc redneck. :-)

hey pink,
it is just too odd that he had his ideal candidate in mccain and then decided that o was the one.
how ridiculous. there is no way to rationally explain this choice unless he doesn't mean a word of what he says.
as you say, 'a finger in the wind spineless politician'.

598 Star Tripper  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:37:53pm

Powell was a very successful political general. There is a skill set necessary for that. He has not run for office or helped anyone win office. If he wanted to help Obama he would have come out for him in the primaries. Instead when it became obvious which way things were going, he made sure he was on the winning side.

Now, as for the Republicans, Reagan built a coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and limited government types. The Lott-Bush-McCain Republicans have ditched the limited government folks and the fiscal conservatives and they finally decided not to show at the last election. So...the plan from Powell and company is to continue to snub the two groups we already lost and now dump the one group we have left. Great idea...for the Democrats.

The Republicans need to get back the fiscal conservatives and the limited government. The message is,"Who should make decisions about your life? You or the guys who run the DMV?"

599 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:43:12pm

re: #554 moonstone

A Christian Theocracy?!?! Please tell me you're joking. Or enlighten me as to the series of events you can foresee that will result in the most hated religion in the U.S. being imposed on us.

Moonstone: Have you done any research, as to the number of well-funded activist groups whose main goal is to make America a "Christian nation" by law? And that's just the ones who are open about it. There are many more operating behind the scenes. And many of those "Christian" groups, both visible and non-, have close ties to white supremacy movements. Check it out.

Will they be victorious in moving the U.S. to theocracy? I doubt it, but it's sure not from lack of focus or of trying. Do a search for the terms "dominionism" and "Christian reconstructionism" and you'll see the tip of the iceberg.

600 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:46:58pm

re: #582 kaymad

Yeah, but notice he is the new spokesperson for the republican party? Could it be because he stuck it to the repugs, so now he's a media darling? That's what bugs me the most, he endorses Obama, a far left candidate, now he's our new republican spokesperson. Can you think of a prominent democrat who endorsed a republican and suddenly became the new face of the Democrat party? Lieberman doesn't count because he was kicked out...which reminds me, democrats kick out members that don't toe the line and look where there at. They own both houses and the Presidency, so I really don't want to hear about how we aren't big tent enough.

Mmmm. "Kicked out" is a stretch, I think. What Lieberman did was called "losing a primary," because he put his own agenda above that of his supporters on a wide range of issues. He quit the party because he lost. And the Dems still let him stay in the Caucus, which I'm not sure I would have done had I been in their shoes.

601 moonstone  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:55:31pm

re: #599 ShanghaiEd

I certainly never denied that it wasn't on anyone's agenda.

I simply think that on a list of undesirable things that are AT ALL LIKELY to happen in this country; it doesn't even make the Top 100.

602 realwest  Mon, May 25, 2009 4:58:53pm

It's sorta interesting - and sorry if someone else has made this point, but over the last five months, Dems have dropped six points,(39-33) Repub's 4,(26-24) yet over the last six years it appears that the Dems have
gone up two (33 to 35 - that 35 is in contrast to the 33 shown for 2009 on the bottem chart). Wonder how they did their 2009 count and I really wonder how come, with Obama's amazing popularity they've still managed to lose or drop six points THIS year? Same seeming anomoly occurs with Independents - for the last six years they seem to have grown from 30 to 36, yet in 2009 they've gone from 30 to 39?
How are they counting 2009, anyway?

603 realwest  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:03:05pm

re: #599 ShanghaiEd
And yet Obama out spent McCain 7-1 in the election.
I'll bet that George Soros has more money and has put more money into LEFT causes and candidates than the Christian Rightists (NO I don't want any kind of theocracy, thankew very much) have managed to do.
And if you think Soro's stands for anything but socialism/communism/collectivisim, then I have a bridge to sell to you - goes ALLLLL the way from Brooklyn to Manhattan...........and back again!
:)

604 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:04:46pm

re: #589 Bloodnok

The trick is being honest with yourself when you see the party that is supposed to be upholding your core values fail to do so.

If fiscal conservatism is a core value then you should be excoriating most of the Republicans currently in office for their actions over the past 9 years.

If individual liberty is a core value then you should be calling out social conservatives who are trying to usher in a social nanny state.

If protecting the Constitution is important to you then you should be exposing those in the party that would subvert it to bring Intelligent design into public school classrooms.

By demanding better of the party I support I am not giving credence to the other side. And trying to find ways to appeal to the growing number of Independents is not becoming "Democrat-lite". It's just where we find ourself at this precise moment.

Yes! This. You say it much better, and in fewer words, than I've stumbled at trying to, recently.

I have very little patience for people suddenly and righteously pleading "principle" on fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, and the sanctity of the Constitution when those same people have grievously supported, by their silence, some of the worst violations of those principles in our history, during the past 8+ years.

605 Ziggy  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:11:47pm

While some may think the Republicans are moving too far right, Powell is smoking crack if he really thinks Republicans want to pay more taxes and have MORE government in their lives. The General is WAY off base. I can relate to not liking McCain, and even Republicans in general, but how on gods green earth do you campaign for chairman Obama and call yourself a Republican? The man is a true patriot and a great American, but the more I hear from him, the less I want to hear form him.

606 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:11:57pm

re: #603 realwest

And yet Obama out spent McCain 7-1 in the election.
I'll bet that George Soros has more money and has put more money into LEFT causes and candidates than the Christian Rightists (NO I don't want any kind of theocracy, thankew very much) have managed to do.
And if you think Soro's stands for anything but socialism/communism/collectivisim, then I have a bridge to sell to you - goes ALLLLL the way from Brooklyn to Manhattan...........and back again!
:)

I hear what you're saying, but "I'll bet" is not a statistic. Show me a Soros-backed court case with one-tenth the social repercussions of the Intelligent Design battle, and I'll raise his villain status on my chart accordingly.

607 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:19:25pm

re: #600 ShanghaiEd

Mmmm. "Kicked out" is a stretch, I think. What Lieberman did was called "losing a primary," because he put his own agenda above that of his supporters on a wide range of issues. He quit the party because he lost. And the Dems still let him stay in the Caucus, which I'm not sure I would have done had I been in their shoes.

It was the Democrat Party that challenged him. I call that kicking him out.

608 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:22:20pm

re: #603 realwest

And yet Obama out spent McCain 7-1 in the election.
I'll bet that George Soros has more money and has put more money into LEFT causes and candidates than the Christian Rightists (NO I don't want any kind of theocracy, thankew very much) have managed to do.
And if you think Soro's stands for anything but socialism/communism/collectivisim, then I have a bridge to sell to you - goes ALLLLL the way from Brooklyn to Manhattan...........and back again!
:)

Don't forget the ACLU which is hell bent on removing any vestige of faith from the public square. And no, I don't want a theocracy either..........I just despise the ACLU and it's power. I don't see many Christian organizations that wiled that kind of clout.

609 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:22:56pm

re: #608 LGoPs

Don't forget the ACLU which is hell bent on removing any vestige of faith from the public square. And no, I don't want a theocracy either..........I just despise the ACLU and it's power. I don't see many Christian organizations that wiled that kind of clout.

wiled = wield

610 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:43:08pm

re: #607 LGoPs

It was the Democrat Party that challenged him. I call that kicking him out.

Well, it's politics after all, not flag football. :) Aren't the parties, by definition, sort of obligated to go with the candidate who can win the election?

611 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:48:46pm

re: #610 ShanghaiEd

Well, it's politics after all, not flag football. :) Aren't the parties, by definition, sort of obligated to go with the candidate who can win the election?

Well apparently they made a bad call because Lieberman ended up winning the general election. The bottom line is they put the challenger up against him, just like the Republicans were threatening to do to Specter. The Democrat Party let Lieberman know he was no longer welcome and I call that kicking him out.

612 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:49:46pm

re: #608 LGoPs

Don't forget the ACLU which is hell bent on removing any vestige of faith from the public square. And no, I don't want a theocracy either..........I just despise the ACLU and it's power. I don't see many Christian organizations that wiled that kind of clout.

The ACLU is the handiest of hobgoblins, but I'll make you the same offer I made Moonstone above. Show me a recent ACLU court case with one-tenth the social repercussions of the Intelligent Design battle, and I'll reconfigure my villain chart.

And for the record, I don't think that faith has a place in the public square. What's wrong with celebrating faith in the church squares...especially since they're tax-exempted (our tax money) for that specific purpose?

613 Yosemite Bill  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:53:28pm

#491 - FOJG No I was not. Elder brother was a wing commander. Two uncles on the ground - in support positions.
In the macro picture of US military actions since the end of WW II there has been a pronounced lack of resolve to achieve victory. Korea, Bay of Pigs, SE Asia, Lebanon, Gulf War, Somalia and the "GWOT."
Our military repeatedly ham strung by historically ignorant, weak or just traitorous politicians( Kerry, Murtha, et al.)
Now in the context of the Jiahdist/ Islamist's mindset just to survive an encounter with a clearly superior military foe =>the US, Israel, Russians, etc even though your forces were badly mauled is a "victory." Hudna - a false truce to buy time to regroup and rearm, etc.
The sad and harsh reality is if jihadist walks away more than likely you will have to face him on ground and at a time of his choosing ..... . And more 9/11 s, more Madrids, more Londons, and more Mumbai s are a near certainty.
This cycle has been evident since the early 1970 s and no US President except Bush 43 has ever tried to end the insanity. Even that effort was half a**ed for a number of reasons.
I am not certain the Jihadists will cease until their losses are so devastating that they can not continue to attempt to slaughter the "infidels" and no libertarians. secularists, leftists and progressives won't get a pass.
It is obvious that the West still does have the resolve to end the threat.
That begs the question as to how many dead on our end will it take ?
I intend that my family will NOT be among the Jihadist's bounty to Allah.
I've got the pager this weekend. I've been summoned to work.
Later Lizards.

614 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:54:24pm

re: #612 ShanghaiEd

The ACLU is the handiest of hobgoblins, but I'll make you the same offer I made Moonstone above. Show me a recent ACLU court case with one-tenth the social repercussions of the Intelligent Design battle, and I'll reconfigure my villain chart.

And for the record, I don't think that faith has a place in the public square. What's wrong with celebrating faith in the church squares...especially since they're tax-exempted (our tax money) for that specific purpose?

They're not a hobgoblin. They are a clear threat to this Republic. The very fact that they have the power to threaten release of abuse/torture photos and the President of the fucking United States feels powerless to challenge them - which was his initial judgement that started the current brouhaha - speaks volumes about their influence and power.
As far as religion goes you can't call Christmas Parties Christmas Parties anymore in many cases for crying out loud. They have to be Winter Parties or some such bullshit. And the ACLU is in the forefront of that kind of repression.

615 kansas  Mon, May 25, 2009 5:58:33pm

re: #23 Walter L. Newton

We are better off with him.

"We" don't have him. "They" have him.

616 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 6:01:03pm

re: #611 LGoPs

Well apparently they made a bad call because Lieberman ended up winning the general election. The bottom line is they put the challenger up against him, just like the Republicans were threatening to do to Specter. The Democrat Party let Lieberman know he was no longer welcome and I call that kicking him out.

Well, a bad call in the short-term, maybe. Did you notice that Lieberman had to break the rules in order to "win"? The FEC fined him for dispersing some $400,000 of "petty cash" on the streets, record-free, in the final week or two of campaigning. A politician who thinks he's above the rules to the degree Lieberman does is a ticking time-bomb for any party.

617 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 6:14:49pm

re: #614 LGoPs

They're not a hobgoblin. They are a clear threat to this Republic. The very fact that they have the power to threaten release of abuse/torture photos and the President of the fucking United States feels powerless to challenge them - which was his initial judgement that started the current brouhaha - speaks volumes about their influence and power.
As far as religion goes you can't call Christmas Parties Christmas Parties anymore in many cases for crying out loud. They have to be Winter Parties or some such bullshit. And the ACLU is in the forefront of that kind of repression.

I think you're misinformed on the Abu Ghraib photos. The ACLU is working within the judicial system, pleading freedom of information. The chief executive isn't supposed to screw with the courts, and vice versa. I like it that way, even when I don't agree with particular outcomes. Score one for the Constitution.

If you'll give me a link on the ACLU-sponsored "winter parties" and how prevalent those are, I will reconfigure my villain chart and salute you with an upding in the process. :)

618 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 6:16:47pm

re: #612 ShanghaiEd

And for the record, I don't think that faith has a place in the public square. What's wrong with celebrating faith in the church squares...especially since they're tax-exempted (our tax money) for that specific purpose?

I don't have a problem with some aspects of faith in the public square. Christmas is so commercialized now as it is, I can't get offended by Christmas decorations on the town street lights. They keep it vague with "Season's Greetings" anyways. It's a traditional part of our culture here, so paying it some respect with token gestures isn't an issue for me. My "town square" also recognizes the other faiths that have holidays in December, so to me, it's still neutral. It's not endorsing a religion, just acknowledging that it's a part of our society.

619 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 6:56:06pm

re: #618 Sharmuta

It's a traditional part of our culture here, so paying it some respect with token gestures isn't an issue for me. My "town square" also recognizes the other faiths that have holidays in December, so to me, it's still neutral. It's not endorsing a religion, just acknowledging that it's a part of our society.

Yes. I have no problem with this. The problem is that the loudest voices against the so-called "War on Christmas" consider "paying respect with token gestures" as anathema, and they sure don't include "recognizing other faiths" in their agenda. It's Christianity or nothing, to them, enforced on us all by law. Dangerous.

620 LGoPs  Mon, May 25, 2009 6:58:36pm

re: #617 ShanghaiEd

I think you're misinformed on the Abu Ghraib photos. The ACLU is working within the judicial system, pleading freedom of information. The chief executive isn't supposed to screw with the courts, and vice versa. I like it that way, even when I don't agree with particular outcomes. Score one for the Constitution.

If you'll give me a link on the ACLU-sponsored "winter parties" and how prevalent those are, I will reconfigure my villain chart and salute you with an upding in the process. :)

What freedom of information are they seeking? And more improtantly, where is the context if their motivation is to seek the truth. Pictures without context, as in what the other side does to our troops and to innocent civilians, serve no purpose other than to inflame our enemies and to damage America. The ACLU is one of those domestic enemies that I took an oath to defend the Constitution against.

621 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 7:03:54pm

re: #619 ShanghaiEd

Yes. I have no problem with this. The problem is that the loudest voices against the so-called "War on Christmas" consider "paying respect with token gestures" as anathema, and they sure don't include "recognizing other faiths" in their agenda. It's Christianity or nothing, to them, enforced on us all by law. Dangerous.

I agree. If there was a real war on Christmas, it wouldn't still be a federal holiday.

622 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 7:16:03pm

re: #620 LGoPs

What freedom of information are they seeking? And more improtantly, where is the context if their motivation is to seek the truth. Pictures without context, as in what the other side does to our troops and to innocent civilians, serve no purpose other than to inflame our enemies and to damage America. The ACLU is one of those domestic enemies that I took an oath to defend the Constitution against.

I agree this is a controversial and potentially dangerous development. Problem is, "information" is "information," and democracy depends on it being freely available. Putting it in context is the task of reasonable individuals who have the information before them. What I'm saying is that, for better or worse, this issue is going through all the rungs of our Constitutional system, and that's the best we can do.

Also, I'm still waiting for the link on the ACLU's war against Christmas parties. Wouldn't it be worth your time, just to shut me up? :)

623 Sheepdogess  Mon, May 25, 2009 7:41:35pm

Intellectual honesty....If you're a catholic and support abortion and same sex marriage, you should convert to protestantism. If you're a republican and support abortion and same sex marriage, you should change parties and become a democrat.

624 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 7:46:16pm

Folks who think the Bible should be a platform for a political party should join the Constitution Party.

625 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 7:48:39pm

re: #623 Sheepdogess

Intellectual honesty....If you're a catholic and support abortion and same sex marriage, you should convert to protestantism. If you're a republican and support abortion and same sex marriage, you should change parties and become a democrat.

Interesting. So you don't think that organizations are ever changed, for the better, from within, by adherents who don't buy into the program 100%? Should it be all or nothing, both with religion and political parties?

626 Obsidiandog  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:12:00pm

re: #621 Sharmuta

It's a federal day off with pay for federal workers. Unionized bureaucrats.

627 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:23:24pm

re: #626 Obsidiandog

It's a federal day off with pay for federal workers. Unionized bureaucrats.

Upside of Christmas: Honors Jesus.

Downside of Christmas: Helps accursed union workers and bureaucrats.

Damn. How's a good American to choose? :)

628 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:25:52pm

re: #625 ShanghaiEd

Not sure you'll get an answer, but the comment history might clue you in to her political ideology.

629 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:36:21pm

re: #628 Sharmuta

Not sure you'll get an answer, but the comment history might clue you in to her political ideology.

Ah-hah. Very instructive. Thanks.

630 Yosemite Bill  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:37:26pm

621/ 622 Hey, you two are well.... clueless.
As for the Anti Christian Lawyers Union - ACLU - I can tell you from first person experience that they are active in attempting to removing nearly every reference to any thing to do with the public expression of Judeo- Christian tradition from the public domain.
There won't be any "link" as it is systemic to their organizational being.
There have been and are numerous newspaper articles - usually in local papers- here in this state for decades. You might try doing a key word search but depending on the data base the hits would be voluminous. "Anti-Christian" is not going to get too many hits as the ACLU sees it self as a "progressive" group protecting society from 'dangerous extremists.' "Bigotry" is probably too broad as well.
Expressions of other religious beliefs are just fine. You will VERY rarely find the ACLU in any fights to prevent Sharia law and you sure as ALgore won't find the ACLU attempting to prevent Gaia worship - can you say (Mother) Earth Day is just so green........ .
Mention Christmas, Christ, Hanukkah, Good Friday, Passover or Easter by name in public or on a vacation schedule in a public school and watch the histrionics, hair pulling and "offended Progressive" gnashing of teeth commence.
Yep, "tolerance" is in the air but hey, you crazy members of the "Religious Right" better shut the @#*& up !
And no Sharm. the Bible isn't a political platform except some how the "social justice" crowd - the Religious Left- keeps telling me that Jesus was a Socialist. Go figure !

631 Sharmuta  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:51:28pm

re: #630 Yosemite Bill

And no Sharm. the Bible isn't a political platform except some how the "social justice" crowd - the Religious Left- keeps telling me that Jesus was a Socialist. Go figure !

Then I think you're not paying attention.

632 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 8:53:06pm

re: #630 Yosemite Bill

I respect your answer, but your facts aren't straight. Bringing "Sharia law and Gaia worship" into a serious discussion about church and state is a red herring.

Can you show me a link to Sharia or Gaia being practiced in the public square, in America? Or a link to the ACLU favoring one religion over another? (Concern about the environment is not a religion but a conservative value, by the way...or it used to be...although today's GOP talking points say otherwise. Can you say "corporate agenda"?)

633 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 9:11:58pm

re: #630 Yosemite Bill

Forgive my typo. I mean to write, "I respect your anger."

As Sharmuta points out above, the Bible is indeed a political platform for many people these days. Check out the Constitution Party: [Link: www.constitutionparty.com...]

Also, look into "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Dominionism." Very active movements, with some very heavy-hitter philanthropists backing them up. All of them Bible-based, from A to Z.

634 Wendya  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:10:39pm

re: #407 Thanos

If you support the state intefering in your life and pushing religion on other people's children and overarching luddism you just stay on and cry in your misery. In the meantime I'll be working to deselect some of the dixiecrat homeschoolers from party leadership. I've been here a hell of a lot longer than them.


The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming! They're going to institute a theocracy!

You know, I've been hearing this BS for the last 20 years. If you want to look for examples of a group pushing ideology on you via government, look no further than the democratic party. They've been doing it for well over 40 years.

635 ShanghaiEd  Mon, May 25, 2009 10:36:08pm

re: #634 Wendya

The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming! They're going to institute a theocracy!

You know, I've been hearing this BS for the last 20 years. If you want to look for examples of a group pushing ideology on you via government, look no further than the democratic party. They've been doing it for well over 40 years.

Wendya, your flippant dimissiveness doesn't change the evidence pointed out above. Some Christians are coming (nobody's ever said "all," that I know of), and their deepest desire is a Christian government. That's indisputable. See evidence, above.

Ideology is not religion, though; all sides push theirs equally, and I don't know any public figure who is ideology-free. What is politics, but a competition among ideologies?

If you know instances of Democrats trying to push religion into government, give me a link and I'll condemn them heartily, tomorrow. That's a no-no.

636 gtrs  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:47:58pm

re: #20 Last Mohican obama's box pre-checked? do you have a citation? or is that snark? you do know obama won by 10 MILLION votes(legitimate votes); don't you?............the way back is NOT through some weird state of denial......................................

637 gtrs  Mon, May 25, 2009 11:52:54pm

re: #24 alegrias
?

638 Syrah  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:49:29am

From the transcript:

Let’s debate the future of the party. And let’s let all segments of the party come in.

You know, my model for the Republican Party is a great man we just lost, a man by the name of Jack Kemp. Jack was as conservative as anybody. We all know Jack. And Jack also was a man who believed in inclusiveness, reaching out to minorities, reaching out to the poor, sharing the wealth. Which became a bad term last fall, but sharing the wealth of the country not only with the rich, but with those who are least advantaged in our society. It’s that kind of Jack Kemp Republicanism that I like, and I would like to see the party move more in that kind of a direction.

This is significant.

I am not sure that Powell represents Jack Kemp fairly, but Powell's understanding of Kemp speaks a great deal about Powell's vision of the world that he wants.

Mr. Powell, its one thing to share your own wealth of your own freewill and volition, but to think it is right and just to use the agency of government to compel others to share theirs is something else entirely.

639 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:21am
640 Yosemite Bill  Tue, May 26, 2009 2:51:43am

S'ED/ Sham - Last post on this one.
"Ideology is not religion..... ."? "Religion" is a system of belief(s)... .
"Ideology" is the body of ideas, social needs and or aspirations of an individ., group or class ... .
The assertion that socialism is not a religion to the Left given the catastrophic and repeated failures attempted in the name of "heaven on earth" utopianism in the last 100 plus years is just vapid.
Yes - the Constitution Party and the Dominionists exist. Gee, I should have known those chestnuts were coming .
And no I don' t read every single post and line thereof of every thread here on LGF.
Some of us have to work for a living and believe me, I am considered the enemy by this socialist cadre in power even though we don't make anywhere near the magical $150-250 K - NOT working is not an option. I am also considered a threat by many here .... member of "Religious Right" and all the bigotry that goes with that pejorative.
So ... "Can you show me a link to Sharia or Gaia being practiced in the public square, in America? Or a link to the ACLU favoring one religion over another? "

I can show you tens of thousands of articles from the late '60's forward of AGW, "green" issues ad infinitum that are nearly 100% science fiction - Gaia worship.
I can so you thousands or articles from the same era forward on Islamic/Jihadist violence than NEVER mention Islam/ Wahhabism/ the Koran etc.
AS for what the ACLU favors ? What don't they attack versus what do they attack ? Question asked and answered.
Good morning .

641 reggie  Tue, May 26, 2009 3:31:46am

If we're really going to revitalize the Republican party by making a bigger tent, I would like to see it welcome back Conservatives :)

GW won his first term campaigning on "Compassionate Conservatism," whatever the hell that is. Frankly, I thought it was Karl Rove making Conservatism more inviting to those who were ignorant of its values. Unfortunately, GW never really governed conservatively, skewing the mainstream perception of Conservatism since that's how he labeled himself.

But damned if the label didn't initially invite others into the tent. And damned if a return to real Conservatism wouldn't invite others out of Obama's tent, now that they see the meglomaniacal effects of the opposite end of the spectrum.

As for Colin, who backed the divisive Obama and yet now espouses a Republicanism that is John McCain writ large, poo-ey. Charles embracing this horse hockey must have something to do with his reaction to the Evangelicals and Creationists, which I agree have no place in politics or science, respectively. But Colin? Really? Blecch.

642 dhg4  Tue, May 26, 2009 4:30:25am

re: #7 redshirt

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the dems made us look weak and hypocritical.

Obama wasn't running against Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul either. He was running against John McCain. For Powell to lament the rightward lurch of the Republican party when he refused to support a non-ideological Republican in favor of an extremely liberal (and not very inclusive) Democrat shows that he is not the right person to make this argument.

And Gen. Powell has been silent on something else that should give us pause. More and more his former Chief of Staff, Col. Larry Wilkerson is acting like a Chas Freeman wannabe talking about neo-conservative cabals. While Powell hasn't endorsed Wilkerson's views, neither has he forcefully repudiated his former aide. Gen. Powell's silence in this matter is rather disturbing.

643 rholmes464  Tue, May 26, 2009 4:31:13am

I think the question that needs to be answered by the Repubs is simple:
If you want to just win elections then be inclusive and dilute your values
If you are not just about elections then stick to your guns. If people dont agree with either party's stances then go independent

644 mph  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:49:18am

There is a stark contrast that needs to be made when entering into this discussion -- and I'm not seeing it anywhere.

Social issues -
Economic issues -
Military/Defense -

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
-Barry Goldwater

...the same Goldwater who also said:

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

645 LGoPs  Tue, May 26, 2009 7:40:04am

re: #622 ShanghaiEd

I agree this is a controversial and potentially dangerous development. Problem is, "information" is "information," and democracy depends on it being freely available. Putting it in context is the task of reasonable individuals who have the information before them. What I'm saying is that, for better or worse, this issue is going through all the rungs of our Constitutional system, and that's the best we can do.

Also, I'm still waiting for the link on the ACLU's war against Christmas parties. Wouldn't it be worth your time, just to shut me up? :)


Here you go.
[Link: www.caucusforamerica.com...]

:)

646 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 8:49:16am
647 Pupdawg  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:00:39am

re: #7 redshirt

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for Obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the Dem's made us look weak and hypocritical.

Precisely, well said!

Anyone from the right whether it be center or whatever who openly supported Barack Obama and cast their vote for Barack Obama should hold no say or sway with the right, the Republican Party or right-leaning Independents even or the future of the right, the Republican Party or right-leaning Independents even in my opinion. Powell would be better served to go the way of Arlen and join the left, the Democrats or the left-leaning Independents. Powell's actions in the last presidential election defy the very core of conservatism. His choice for president last November sealed that deal breaker. Neither the Republican Party nor the Independent movement left Powell. He ran from them and now he surfaces trying to dictate what conservatives in this country should do to become more like Democrats! I'll give him his due. The man has balls. In my opinion, he has made the transition to the Democrat tent and has the pick-pocket mentality to he want to carry all the tables and chairs with him.
My past support for Powell as a future elected politician is over and I feel betrayed. He has left us and no matter what he says now it's just distractions from the truth. He is under Obama's tent.

648 Grand Poobah  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:07am

re: #7 redshirt

Come on, Powell supported Obama for crying out loud. How is there room in the tent for obama supporters? If we made the tent that big, we might as well just ditch it. I think we strengthen ourselves by actually holding to conservative values. I don't think the current republicans have done that. Massive spending by Bush and playing nice with the dems made us look weak and hypocritical.

You hit the nail flat on its head. Something I am surprised Charles hasn't even mentioned. I think Limbaugh said it best (something he does every now and then) when he said " [sic] Why should we move past Regan? Democrats clearly haven't moved past FDR."

I think that sums it up. Some Republicans and RINOs think the age of Regan and small government is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my hunch is that because McCain was so clueless as to economic management, people figured they might as well vote for the Black guy and proudly proclaim how they helped make history. No one likes a loser, and McCain's policies were almost exactly identical as Obama's. In fact, McCain would be just as annoying if not more so, than Obama in office.

The only real danger to this country is the body of people we call Congress.

649 Icculus  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:56am

Were you watching the last presidential election at all Charles? Is it even remotely possible to be more "centrist" than John McCain and still be in the GOP?! How much more "centrist" would you like the party to be? Can we find a Republican who hates tax cuts and loves abortion? Maybe a Republican candidate for welfare moms and state run health care? Did the party lose because McCain didn't hate Jesus enough? WTF?!

650 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:39pm
651 Sharmuta  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:05pm

re: #646 mmmaxim

Right- you and your whopping one comment will be missed. Not.

652 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:08pm
653 Sharmuta  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:40pm

re: #641 reggie

GW won his first term campaigning on "Compassionate Conservatism," whatever the hell that is.

I've come to call "compassionate conservatives" socialist republicans.

654 Sharmuta  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:04:07pm

re: #650 reggie

What?

655 Sharmuta  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:04:28pm

re: #652 reggie

And that's really uncalled for.

656 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:18pm

Assholes coming out of the woodwork again.

657 DebbieSym  Tue, May 26, 2009 8:30:29pm

My problem with Colin Powell is that he voted for Barack Obama, but claims to be a Republican. You may recall that he disputed the statement, by Rush Limbaugh, that his vote was based on race. If it wasn't based on race, then what was it based on, pray tell? Certainly not philosophy, given that Obama is very, very liberal.

I agree that we need a big tent. But I think the basics have to be emphasized — fiscal restraint of the highest order, endorsement of capitalism, small government, judicial restraint, etc. I'm not too keen on social conservatism, but I think we should all be able to agree on a grounding belief of small government.

658 Sceptic Tank  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:58:50am

There has to be food in a belly before it can be purged. The Radical is Powell with zero credibility. But, as a democrat, he should not be purged as he is a loyal ally.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 139 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1