I'm sure you've all heard about Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. This may have come as a surprise to some, but I think this significantly undermines silly misconceptions and far-fetched accusations concerning Obama's character, leadership, economic philosophy, and experience.
Gen. Powell said of Obama that he "had shown the necessary depth of judgment to be president, as well as a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems that would serve him well in the White House." (source)
General Powell has been one of the most highly respected Americans for quite some time now. He is considered to be honest, moral, and a man of steady judgement. He's a Republican too, who, as most of you know, served as President Bush's Secretary of State from 2001-2005, after which he quit due to a number of disagreements with the Bush administration, most notably over how both the Iraq war and the war on terror were being managed, including the violation of domestic and international law concerning the use of torture.
Anyway, I remember thinking back in 2005 that if Colin Powell were to run for the Republican nomination for President, I would vote for him. I was impressed with his resignation because he was standing up for something he believed. He was true to his commitments and values! If Gen. Powell's trusts Obama, that's a pretty good indication that maybe Obama isn't such a awful choice after all, even for a Republican.
His endorsement ought to show that cries of "impending Obama socialism" are pathetically empty. I mean, honestly! Do you really think that people like Colin Powell and Warren Buffet would publicly endorse a socialistic maniac? Buffet made his fortune because of capitalism. He's not going to endorse someone who will bring to an end the very means of his vast riches.
I think it's also appropriate to mention what Newt Gingrich said of Powell's endorsement of Obama. Gingrich is impressed and said "What that just did in one sound bite... is it eliminated the experience argument." (source)
I hope his endorsement serves to break down misconceptions concerning Obama and that people look at Obama from a different angle now.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Colin Powell endorses Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I Think Powell endorsed Obama because of the negative backlash he has had with the GOP and Bush's administration. I also think he did it because what is important to him is the War in Iraq and so sort of International image for the nation. He thinks Obama would do better with that. Perhaps he would but for a domestic front I disagree I don't think Obama is the best for us Domestically.
I respect Powell but I do not agree with him on his endorsement and niether does his son Michael.
Sure there have been misconception on Obama and I think that those misconceptions have been what the Media has failed to inform about Obama's past associations, such as with ACORN, Ayers, etc. Also, I think it has been a misconception on Obama for the Media to not question his statements and ideas. He seems to get a free pass a lot of the time.
The fact is, whether Powell endorses him or not, Obama's policies are not ones I want implemented in our country.
What Powell should have done was to endorse a third party, but no one will give them any legitimacy.
And yes I do think people like Powell and Buffet will endorse socialism because many wealthy people have come to believe that it is the moral thing to do, which is in my view extremely misguided. The most effective medium for charity is through private contribution not government mandate.
I think we need to break away from the political machine of the Republicans and Democrats and bring in fresh people (third party) to govern the way our government was meant to be run by the founding fathers.
I've always respected Gen. Powell, and I think it's interesting that he has endorsed Obama. I think it's good to take note of highly respected people, and their choices and opinions, but we need to be careful not to let that trump our ability to choose for ourselves, based on our awareness, research and opinions. Some will blindly switch their vote and their loyalty, based on Powell's endorsement.
Nate,
You think that Obama would not be best for this country domestically. Perhaps. However, I'm not voting for him because of his domestic policies, rather for his world vision and the potential he has to give US foreign relations a much, much needed "deep cleaning"! But I will save that for another post.
I respect your passionate enthusiasm for third parties. I really do. There should be more of them, with a greater political influence than they now enjoy.
However, after investigating the Constitution Party, I find that my views of good governance do not coincide with theirs any more than my views do with the Republican party.
Yes, the Founding Fathers were indeed inspired of God to organize and form this country for the establishment and restoration of the gospel. On that, you and I can agree on. However, I disagree that we should attempt to sort of "bring back" the nation to a form of governance we think the Founding Fathers had envisioned.
I don't agree with the Constitution Party on the premise that the Constitution should be literally interpreted. (That's their philosophy, isn't it? If not, I stand to be corrected).
The principles of democracy in the Constitution live on and are unchanging. Yet, as President Uchtdorf said in this month's First Presidency Message, "Procedures, programs, policies, and patterns of organization are helpful...but let's not forget that they are subject to change".
Similarly, I believe that such in the political realm are subject to change in this country. The Constitution lays down principles that should guide our formation of procedures, programs, policies, and patterns of organization.
The argument against bigger government doesn't make much sense to me when the country continues to grow and grow in both population and economic activity, including foreign relations, and every other sector of contemporary globalization. Things will only get more complex and populations will only grow. It seems therefore, that the rational reaction to such an immense growth would be bigger government.
Just like in the Church. 100 years ago, the Church hardly had need of two quorums of seventy. Now we need more than eight quorums! Church government has grown dramatically due to growth in membership and budget. This demanded more quorums of seventy, including the construction of the highest skyscraper in SLC.
By analogy, this can be applied to our nation's government. Bigger doesn't automatically mean "badder". It could very well mean better! That all depends on those in charge.
One other comment. Your quick disregard for the significance of Buffet and Powell's endorsement is, in my view, an easy way to avoid thoughtful comment.
You think rich people would support socialism "because many wealthy people have come to believe that it is the moral thing to do".
Many rich people do donate via private charities. In fact, the phrase "private charities" is redundant, because all charities are private. Any charity that's public is called public assistance and is funded by taxes.
Rich people are not concerned about the means by which they can "give back" to the community. There are a miriad of ways. They are concerned, however, with the means by which they made their riches. No rich person want those means to be eliminated, neither does any person with the goal of making money. It's not rational and such an arguement carries no wait.
Pointing the "Socialism" finger is again nothing more than the fear/smear tactic opponents like to use. It's not new.
They used it against Bill Clinton too. And what did he do during his 8 years? He balanced the budget. Immagine that. It was a budget deep in the red and 300% larger than before Reagen took office, thanks to his unnecessary Cold War weapons spending.
So Reagon screws the budget, Clinton balances it, and Bush screws it again with is overzealous Iraq/terror obsession. There's a pattern here. Our budget seems to always be in the red due to military spending. Why does this country like guns so much?
Anyway, if Democrats balanced it during the 90s, maybe they can do it again over the next few years.
Chris,
First of all in order for us to even be successful abroad and in foreign affairs we have to be strong at home and right now we are weak! We need to focus on our nation and strengthen it, after which we can then move outside to foreign affairs and involvement. We have spread ourselves too thin and we need to bring it back home.
An example could be that Joe gives so much to a number of charities every year which includes money as well as some of his time in service. He also spends some of his disposable income in the market which benefits the economy and growth. But all of a sudden Joe experiences a layoff followed by hard economic times that are more than just temporary.
What should Joe do? Should he continue on his current path of giving the same he always does every year as well as spending the same he does into the economy to bolster it with consumer spending? Or, should he bring everything home in these times of hardship and focus on supporting his family?
I think that Joe should bring it all home and strengthen his family. Was they are on stable ground then he came move out and start to bolster the economy as well as contribute to others needs.
I think you can see my point here that Joe is our Nation and that we need to bring things home and focus on our family and once we are strong again then we can move into the world sphere.
We should be drilling our own oil, securing our borders, strengthening OUR economy, focus on alternative energy, lowering taxes, cut spending, balance the budget, bring our troops home, and once this is accomplished then look to supporting world economies and assistance. We do not have the strength to take on the agenda of the world at this time. We have too many people in our Nation that need attention! This is why I think we need someone with a more domestic agenda and not a world agenda as Obama has.
As for Big government, I don't agree with your analogy of the church growing and I will tell you why. The churches leadership and government has grown but the churches commandments remain the same, they have not changed! Were as with government for it to grow that means for laws to change be altered more control of the people and less rights. The Constitution was written to limit governments powers, in fact I think the Bill of rights should of been called the Bill of limitations on Government for the people rights are inherent and what should be written is governments limitations.
I think another reason why we disagree on this is because if I understand you right you want the Federal Government to grow, become larger, and be the entity that controls the peoples lives or should I say provides care for the peoples lives in the way they see fit.
I don't want large federal government. The Federal government is to follow the constitution strictly. The rest of the powers not given to the Feds is given to the States to conduct and control. It is the States that should have the power to improve Healthcare, education, welfare, and anything else not given to the Feds. Why does it have to be the Feds to fix things, honestly?
The more government places their hands in our lives the more control they gain over us and eventually this will makes those in leadership positions desire more power and lead to the abuse of it.
The only way to balance a budget today is to either raise taxes or cut spending. From my Joe example raising taxes would not be good but cutting spending would! I don't think Obama plans to cut spending nor does he plan on not raising taxes. Our Country is in a world of hurt, we must come home and we must focus on strengthening our Nation.
Government has grown a lot since it was created and at the rate we are growing how long will if be before it is so large that it controls everything? It is very easy to enlarge government but much hard and sometimes near impossible to cut it. Another reason why I am against Big Government.
Democrats and liberals are against Big Business because of the supposed injustices it places upon smaller business and the people. Couldn't you say the same about Big Government? What stops them from abusing State and Local government as well as the people?
There are risks with a powerful Fed, without a doubt. Maybe "big" is a bad adjective to describe the type of government I have in mind. Big doesn't necessarily mean powerful...but of course it doesn't mean effective either.
I agree that States ought to be able to take more control of issues such as health care, education, etc. However, to accomplish that, something has got to be done with all the grant programs offered by the Fed to influence State policy. Grants are something a lot of states in the union depend on. Federal funding is huge for some states... (wispering: like Alaska), and to cut that funding would be a hard thing to do in a state legislature, wouldn't it?
Now, I know you know that we can only seperate the fed and the state so far. I think it's important to retain some type of national uniformity when it comes to certain things. After all, we are a federation.
As for your Joe analogy: I agree that we should "bring it home". We do need to focus on fixing things here on the home front. However, what's new about that? We always have needed to do that. You can't suspend one area of govt to work on another. Focus needs to be placed on all areas or you'll run into trouble like we are in now.
You said the following:
"We should be drilling our own oil, securing our borders, strengthening OUR economy, focus on alternative energy, lowering taxes, cut spending, balance the budget, bring our troops home, and once this is accomplished then look to supporting world economies and assistance".
I agree with every word. But don't forget the capitalistic and very effecient concept of comparative advantage within international trade. When the US focuses on foreign policy, it's not to support world economies and assistance, we're in it for us! It's in our interest to trade. That is how we strengthen our economy. And trade involves not only monetary transactions, but diplomacy, treaties, regulations, enforcement, security, and above all, some level of trust. In order to accomplish all of that, we have to be on good terms with the foreign country we're dealing with. (Cuba is a good case in point). Right now, our international "good terms" report card is D-, with the exeption of our relations with Gordon Brown.
Now, that said, once we begin drilling our OWN oil, and manufacturing our OWN stuff, we're not going to keep it here when we can sell it and make a profit. Why drill our own oil when we can buy it cheaper internationally?
My point is this: The world is so internationally connected, so globalized on all levels, that the arguement for "energy independence" and all other types of economic and political independence is a worthless arguement. It denotes a lack of understanding how globalization has changed and will continue to change the way individual governments interact with their own people and with other countries. We're past the point of no return as far as many types of "independence" are concerned.
Which reminds me of another reason why I don't like Chuck Baldwin. He wants us out of the UN, NATO, and every other useless international organization, including the reexamination of all treaties. I completely and absolutely disagree. A foreign policy founded on isolation is not what this country needs in the middle of globalization, at least in my opinion.
I am sure you and I differ on this because of our different educational backgrounds and specialties. Maybe that's why its so fun to debate it.
Post a Comment