Powell backs Obama on national security record
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 7 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
70 Comments
Login to comment
0
RomeoRamenII
For those of us who actually saw that interview, here's what Powell said in its entireity:
Obama "put too much on the plate for the American people to absorb at this time."
Translation: We lowly rubes are too stupid to appreciate the sheer brilliance of Obama.
Powell's a by-product of affirmative action supporting another.
0
motogaijin
Who really cares what Colin Powell thinks at this point? There was a time that I greatly admired him, but he proved himself to be nothing more than another GWB yes-man and spent all of the goodwill that intelligent Americans had for him.
0
Mocheake
"By-product of affirmative action"? Always the fallback for people who can't handle a minority's success. Where did he benefit from affirmative action? You don't become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs through affirmative action. Powell got to where he is through hard work and smarts. I bet he put up with more racism than you could possibly imagine. Bring some facts to the table instead of spouting the usual drivel of jealous bigots.
0
SushiSake3
motogaijin - "but he proved himself to be nothing more than another GWB yes-man."
What? He resigned because he disagreed with the direction bush and cheney were going in.
There's no 'yes-man' in doing that.
0
betterdays
.............They make the most noise!!
0
borscht
Sushisake3,
But before he resigned, he went in front of the UN to accuse Iraq of having 'this much' chemical weapon and massively destructive weapons all the time knowing it wasn't true. I respected him much less after the UN dog-and-pony show and more after he resigned.
0
Beelzebub
Yo, Colin! Where did you say those mobile weapons of mass destruction facilities were again? What? You mean you confused an anthrax lab with Saddam Hussein's Winnebago? Well gosh, it's a little hard to believe a man who headed the Pentagon could have been tricked so easily. Or maybe you were just being the good soldier, following orders. You certainly weren't much of a Secretary of State. Come to think of it, you're not much of a Republican either.
0
adaydream
Unfortunately Colin Powell was sold the same bill of goods that bush/cheney/feith sold the whole country. With the CIA "Slam Dunking" the intelligence that bush was selling, he bought it Hook, Line & Sinker. He even admitted later that his report to the UN was the low point in his career.
Just because Powell bought bush's lies doesn't make him all wrong. Just like most of you republicans who thought and some of you still believe that the WMD existed as was discribed. So misled.
Colin Powell's a damn smart individual. I wouldn't take what he says lightly. < :-)
0
Beelzebub
No, he's just slippery.
I wouldn't take what he says. Period.
0
Odogma
Someone has to back Obama...
0
motogaijin
Someone asked that this post be removed, and the moderator would not comply. At any rate it's important that the readers of JT get to understand how much distaste right-wingers have for minorities with power in the U.S. and RR has demonstrated it with ninja-like precision
slow clap
0
Odogma
I'd bet good money the non-American leftists here had pretty strong distaste for Powell back in 03.
0
RomeoRamenII
Hmm. Let's see, general. To date, we've experienced two successful attacks and one attempted one on U.S. soil by Islamists on Obama's watch.
Yep. America's a lot safer with Obama at the helm. /sarcasm
0
SushiSake3
RomeoRamen - "Hmm. Let's see, general. To date, we've experienced two successful attacks and one attempted one on U.S. soil by Islamists on Obama's watch."
Hmmm...let's see. Under bush, America was hit by the biggest terror attack in its history.
And bush and his top officials were warned but did nothing.
Not only did bush/cheney go off on a incredibly costly wild goose chase by attacking the wrong country, but they also sucked millions of Americans in by making them think Hussein was a threat.
So, yes, you are right - your sarcasm aside - America IS a lot safer with Obama at the helm - especially as he is now hitting the real enemy, the one that if bush/cheney had any smarts, they would have focused on way back in 2003.
And yes, Powell was sold the same twisted information that America was.
Powell was never really in the inner circle, he regularly fought with Rumsfeld and was known as a dove while bush/cheney/rumsfeld, etc. were hawks.
0
motogaijin
They probably had more of a distaste for his actions, and they should. However, the original poster's admonishment of Mr. Powell seems to come from the (unfounded) idea that he is an unqualified minority. There's a big difference, and I think most people would be able to understand that.
0
skipthesong
wow, I recall the left's complete distaste for Powell back in the day... even going as far as calling him an Uncle Tom and there he remained, until he threw his support behind Obama.
RR: AA only works for us for a certain amount. It doesn't put you as high as where Powell went. his career was great and he proved himself worthy. I know it pisses a lot of you guys off and there are cases where I would understand you, but it was put there for a reason.
0
RomeoRamenII
skip, I see wher you're coming from, but I have to disagree with you. Powell rose up through the senior Army ranks via political appointments starting with a White House Fellowship in the Nixon years. His career really took off between 1979-89 where in a 10-year span (mainly under two republican administrations, btw) he went from a one-star to a four-star general. In case you don't know, all general-grade promotions are congressionally approved.
He only held two commands (V Corps and FORCECOM) as a general grade officer only because his military resume was thin in the area of dealing with troops on a day-to-day basis. His time after Vietnam was spent in rooms as a staff officer who was appointed by presidents to positions of military power. He morphed from being a soldier into a political opportunist. Sorry, skip, but I don't see greatness there.
Now, remember, he said that skin color was not his "primary reason" for backing Obama. But it was a reason just the same. Like it or not, he chose to support Obama because McCain was White. That, skip, is about as racist as you can get. After all the BS the leftists were calling him (Uncle Tom, Oreo, etc.) he took working with President Bush, perhaps Powell just wanted his "Black Man" card back.
Then again, maybe Powell thought that he'd have a spot in an Obama administration. However, if you have noticed, Obama never tapped Powell for anything. Skip, have any thoughts as to why is that?
Skip, I hope Powell likes being around his new-found liberal best friends because his reputation and legacy is now beyond repair.
0
Sarge
"Powell is a Republican who supported Democrat Obama for president"
He's a Republican only on paper. No true Republican would have supported the most liberal Democrat who ever ran for president.
0
RomeoRamenII
With the CIA "Slam Dunking" the intelligence
As I've reminded you time and time again, alan, the CIA was being run by a Clinton administration holdover. But, hey, don't take my word for it. Go upstairs and ask your parents.
0
Hehehohohaha
Like it or not, he chose to support Obama because McCain was White. >
Others voted for Obama because he was black or because he was a dem or had a clear message or thought he could bring change ...
And many voted for McCain because he was white or voted because he was republican or was a military man or thought he was a maverick ...
There are many many reasons why people vote, however, you always seem to make a meal out of the skin color.
0
RomeoRamenII
True, but only Powell, my nation's first black Secretary of State, went on record as saying skin color was one of his reasons for backing Obama.
Big difference.
0
Sarge
I don't believe Colin Powell, a Republican and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supported the Democrat Obama because he is black. I believe he supported him because he has more solid military experience than the Republican McCain... wait a minute, Obama has zero military experience, while McCain is a decorated Vietnam veteran...
0
LIBERTAS
Considering the worst threat to US security was the entire cabinet of BushCo., and they don't pull too many strings any more, I guess Powell may be right!
0
adaydream
RomeoRamenII
I'll remind you that Clinton didn't fall for the CIA lies. bush took their lies and ran straight to Iraq and started a war. Remember?
I'll remind you that bush/cheney are the ones who ran around all over the country repeating the CIA lies even after they were debunked.
Powell was so disrespected by the bush administration. They fed Powell the lies and being the good soldier he believed his Commander-in-Chief, who lied to him. Never has a president lied to the military like bush/cheney lied to our fighting men and women. < :-)
0
skipthesong
I'll remind you that Clinton didn't fall for the CIA lies. bush took their lies and ran straight to Iraq and started a war. Remember?" So they lied to him too, but he was smart enough not to believe them? I'm asking!
They fed Powell the lies and being the good soldier he believed his Commander-in-Chief, who lied to him. Never has a president lied to the military like bush/cheney lied to our fighting men and women." I thought you said Nixon and Johnson did... or do I have you confused?
0
adaydream
skipthesong, you're thinking of another poster. < :-)
0
yabits
When all was said and done, Powell ended up with a distaste for the Powell of '03. That's what happens when you run with a very bad crowd.
0
adaydream
skipthesong
Yes, you're correct there. < :-)
0
yabits
If Colin Powell went "on record" as saying that "skin color" was one of his reasons for backing Barack Obama, that record should be very easy to produce.
The reason you can't produce any proof of this is because there is none. Powell never went on record with any such thing, and JT readers should become aware of that.
0
Mocheake
Well, RomeoRamenII, you can dislike Powell because he favored Obama due to his skin color, but for 200-plus years the only thing the Democrats and Republicans threw up there were white males. I'm sure most people like you didn't have a problem with that. Let me guess, you don't think there are whites in prominent positions who voted for McCain simply because of his skin color? At least Powell was honest. I bet you will be evaluating Obama based on his color but you wouldn't be doing it to McCain. I don't think Powell cares what you think of his reputation and legacy. Powell's record speaks for itself. You don't have to see greatness because you aren't in a position to appoint him to anything. Obviously, his superiors did see something and he proved them correct. You can belittle his achievements but I'm sure his resume is a heck of a lot better than yours.
0
adaydream
RomeoRamenII
Never ever said. Another republican/RomeoRamenII lie he can't back up. Like yabits said, this should be easy for you to locate the reference. I'd love to see it, too. < :-)
0
yabits
Keep in mind that the statement made was that Powell went "on record" as saying the reason he was supporting Obama was because of skin color.
Powell never went on record saying any such thing.
0
skipthesong
I would vote for a Cuban American just for that reason. Go Marco.
0
adaydream
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/19/2008-10-19colinpowellsendorsementofbarackobam.html
Colin Powell's record of dedication to America, maybe not to a party or president, is admirable. His knowledge and expertise in national security I trust. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
Alan, if you subscribe to AP, go to a story filed Oct. 19, 2008. In it, you will find the following sentence:
Powell said he was cognizant of the racial aspect of his endorsement, but said that was not the dominant factor in his decision.
As I wrote earlier, it was not "the dominant factor", but a factor nonetheless.
Alan, you claim Powell's endorsement of Obama was not about race. If you really believe that, then provide a link showing all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed.
Good luck in finding one.
0
adaydream
RomeoRamenII
This comment you made quantifies your comment that it was definitely a decision based on race.
"NOT SO!!" You can paste a quote, but when you mis-characterize the quote like that you've changed the meaning of it. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
alan, subscribe to the AP Web site (like I do) and look up the story yourself. The sentence I provided to you is exactly the way it was written.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for your proof that Powell has ever endorsed inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates.
0
adaydream
I stand by your mis-characterization as proof enough that your statement is incorrect.
You said it. I'm not going any farther on this point. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
Ah, so you concede that Powell has never endorsed any inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates. Heh, alan goes down in flames.
0
yabits
That, RomeoRamenII, is as ludicrous as one can get. It's so lacking in integrity that it doesn't even qualify as "reasoning."
0
yabits
Answer: Joe Biden for Vice-President
0
Molenir
I thought he made a valid point. Powell has never endorsed a candidate that was anywhere close to as inexperienced, who happened to be white. I'm willing to allow that he might have had other reasons for supporting Obama, but its beyond unreasonable to think race didn't factor into his consideration.
What I find amusing is that even after seeing what a disaster Obama has been thus far, he is still not willing to come out and admit supporting him was a mistake. Instead he claims, absurdly, that the nation is more financially secure since Obama was elected, and that “slowly but surely we are starting to see the kind of improvements the American people wanted and voted for him for.” Incompetent leadership, cronyism corruption, massive unemployment, soaring deficits, a debt ballooning past sustainable levels, weakness overseas. Does he really believe that these are the changes that Americans wanted?
0
adaydream
Molenir, there's a big difference between the reason and a factor.
I considered Obama's being black before I voted, but I sure didn't vote for him for that reason. I personally endorsed Obama in my conversations with other voters before the election and race wasn't even a factor. It was pure politics.
Obama being black might have been a factor, but to say his blackness got Powell's vote is entirely different.
http://catholicexchange.com/2008/10/24/114239/
What is certainly true is that twice during this Meet The Press interview Colin Powell said that either Barack Obama or John McCain would be “a good president.”
He said that McCain seemed to be “a little unsure” of how to solve our current economic crisis, but that Obama showed “intellectual vigor.”
He declared that Sarah Palin’s presence on the ticket signals a rightward shift in the Republican Party that was not to his liking.
He point blank stated, “I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.”
In his endorsement on "Meet the Press" I don't even remember Powell using the work black. < :-)
0
yabits
Let's see, about this time in the previous president's first term, we were digging the dead out of the rubble of the WTC (an attack that occurred fully one month after catching one of the gang and refusing an FBI request to examine his computer), started one war and getting ready to launch another, as well as turning the tables fiscally from surpluses to deep deficits.
Anyone who thinks President Obama is a disaster when compared to that is not fit mentally.
This better describes Obama's predecessor -- the guy whose administration did more to dig the deep hole the nation now finds itself in. Powell is correct to continue his support for President Obama. He's a moderate Republican just like in the mode of Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, and Jim Jeffords. (A dying breed, thanks to the dishonest, right-wing wackos who've hijacked the GOP.)
0
Molenir
Next year, when the deficits still sky high, and the recession still not over, no doubt you'll still be singing the same tune. Its not Obamas fault, he inherited all this...
And if you read what I wrote, and only see Bush, its you thats not mentally fit. Everything I said has been happening under Obama. You complained about Republicans and Bush throwing money away. And here you are defending a man who is blowing more money in a year then Bush did in 4. Way to be consistent. The difference being under Bush, we didn't have massive unemployment, while the debt and the deficits raced higher, it doesn't even compare to what Obama has done. And for Bush, you can hate him, but the man was a leader, even if you don't like where he lead.
Again, I don't consider any of those 3 Senators to be moderate. Calling them that, is being disingenuous and dishonest. When they're left of more liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe, then sorry, they get the liberal tag. Finally, its not "dishonest right-wing wakos who've hijacked the GOP" Rather its people are pissed off, that the Reps they elected, who claimed to be conservative, who they sent to Washington to help solve the problems, instead contributed to it under Bush. Conservatives are justifiably tired about voting for liberal Republicans. They want someone to go to Washington and fight for them, and the things they believe in. Not more of the same. If they want that, they can vote Democrats, and thats the issue. Unfortunately for you, and the liberal Republicans, most Americans identify themselves as Conservatives. Thats why even John McCain is having to run hard in a Primary. Thats not hijacking the party, its taking it back. Its saying, go back to what you claimed to support. Dems are supposed to be the wasteful, pro-government, big spenders. Republicans who support that, are justifiably going to have to account.
0
yabits
Anyone can look back at history and learn that FDR did not cure the problems of the Great Depression in one year's time. It took over a decade -- and such is the deep hole bequeathed to America by Bush and the Republicans.
Before I get to Colin Powell, I'll add that one of the great things that FDR did was to raise the top marginal income tax rate from 27% to around 93% by 1944. (And the U.S. economy took off to new heights despite that.)
Colin Powell has gone on record as saying that the Republican Party has moved WAAAY too far to the right to suit the nation's best interests as he sees them. Now, being called "dishonest" by a person who claims that the Republicans have filibustered at all since Obama took office is something I'll gladly receive.
The American Conservative Union has detailed voting records on their website going back to the 1970s. In their scoring system, you are liberal if you score from 0 to 40, conservative from 70 to 100, and moderate from 40 to 70. If you look at the voting records of Chafee, Specter, and Jeffords, they have always fallen in the range defined as "moderate." Moderate to conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Sam Nunn score typically in the 40-70 range. Colin Powell would, if he were a legislator, score likewise.
0
yabits
It depends on what segment of the population is asked the question. Over 65% of young people regard the Republicans as anathema. (Smart folks, those young ones.)
The Republicans may end up forcing Colin Powell and other moderates out. "Taking it back" is what Republicans told us what had happened when George W. Bush won.
Young people are smart enough to realize that.
0
Molenir
Very few people who know anything about this, would think for even a moment, that FDR brought the US out of the depression. Instead, he lengthened it. Worsened it. It took a war to finally break America out of the rut it was in under FDR.
Then they graduate college, and go out into the real world and have to work for a living, and realize, that redistribution of wealth is not right. They wise up and become conservatives.
Bush 2, scared a lot of conservatives when he was elected. A lot of people held their nose and voted for him, thinking that he was better then the alternative. Even today, I'm not sure he isn't. Imagining a Gore Presidency is a nightmare I prefer not to contemplate. And I say that from a perspective that Bush destroyed the Republican party.
However if you look at the positions they support, you realize, that far from being moderate, they are in fact, quite liberal. Someone who is pro-abortion, and in favor of bigger government, is not a moderate, despite occasionally voting for a tax cut. Lieberman is a good example of this. I like the man personally, however I disagree on about 80% of his politics. Oh, he's one of the examples on the other side I mentioned before.
I wasn't going to comment on this, however in rereading your post, I simply couldn't let it slide. What you're forgetting, is that there were so many loopholes and tax havens, that no one paid that money. They invested in things like coal mines, which oddly enough gave a huge tax write off. Only a very few people, most of whom came into wealth suddenly, found themselves hurt by this. So despite its stated aim, it kept the rich rich, and the poor poor. Something you generally don't think of when you think about FDR.
0
yabits
This is what dishonest Republicans have to say about FDR's initial actions, ignoring that it was solid Republican administrations practicing solid Republican policies that ran the country aground. (Just like today's Republicans which Powell is increasingly distancing himself from.)
What was it about the war that brought the nation back? Massive government spending unlike any time in our nation's history (relative to GDP).
0
yabits
The intellectually dishonest (and perennially wrong) -- as indicated by someone who asserts that the Republicans have not filibustered under Obama -- should not get to define it. (God forbid.) The American Conservative Union has a competent method of looking over a wide range of issues and, based on how the person voted, assigning a value to them as to how their stances relate to conservative positions.
"Moderate" on their scale is anyone who votes for conservative positions 40 to 65 percent of the time. That includes people in the vein of Colin Powell: Democrats like Nunn, Nelson,(Zell) Miller and Lieberman, and Republicans like Specter, Snowe, Cohen, Chafee and Jeffords.
True liberals to the ACU are indicated by folks like Boxer, Feingold, Franken, and the late Paul Wellstone.
0
yabits
I will point out that, to some Republicans, the American Conservative Union's placing the voting records of Democrats and Republicans in the vein of Colin Powell as "moderate," is a clear example of the ACU being -- what were the words? -- "disingenuous and dishonest."
0
Molenir
Nope, government spending then and now, does very little. People coming back from the war with a big chunk of change in their pocket, and people back home, who after the war felt they had overcome. This shift in attitude, led to new opportunities. People started to invest again, and the economy finally rebounded. Then and now, the attitude of the people has more to do with recession/depression then anything else.
Do you really want to argue this out again, cloture versus filibusters? You know you're wrong, calling a cloture vote a filibuster is a bald faced lie. Republicans haven't had the votes to filibuster until Brown was elected. Saying otherwise is quite frankly nonsense. To compare this to previous congresses, where filibusters were actually used, is even worse.
And I say, numbers aside, anyone who consistently supports abortion, and bigger government is a liberal. I really don't care how some supposedly conservative group rates people. Socially liberal policies, alongside fiscally liberal policies make a person a liberal, regardless of whether or not they occasionally vote for a tax break.
Colin Powell however doesn't fall into these categories, as the man has never run for public office. He may be a moderate, we don't know. All we know is his various stated positions. I do know, I wouldn't vote for him. Anyone who would support someone as inexperienced as Obama was, is suspect, particularly when you consider that the only thing Obama had going for him was a lot of empty rhetoric, and the color of his skin. Someone who supports a man like that, to me is not someone I would want as my representative.
0
yabits
I never called a cloture a filibuster. It was you who claimed that Republicans never filibustered once against Obama. The fact is that the Republicans have filibustered 80% of Obama's major legislative initiatives. You wanting to divert the issue to votes of cloture is telling.
0
yabits
Every dollar put there by Uncle Sam.
0
Molenir
A filibuster, even a threatened filibuster requires how many votes? And how many votes did the Republicans have? Case closed, you're wrong, you just can't admit it can you.
lol. We have a fundamental disagreement here Yabits. You obviously subscribe to the discredited Keynesian school of economic theory. I do not.
0
yabits
So, when you go around accusing people of being "disingenuous and dishonest" and those people are using criteria based on a variety of issues rather than the ones you cherry-pick, you are actually saying more about yourself. (And it's not complimentary.)
Colin Powell has gone on record as supporting Roe v. Wade, which, after nearly 40 years and multiple challenges, is settled law. Theoretically, the true conservative respects settled law and the great weight of precedence. Therefore, those who don't respect settled law, and who want to turn the clock backwards, are not really conservatives, but reactionaries.
The American Conservative Union has it about right. It is the reactionaries who are the "supposed conservatives."
0
yabits
Who paid the soldiers returning from war with all those "dollars in their pockets?"
0
yabits
Ludicrous. You went on record saying the Republicans never filibustered Obama. Just this week, five Republicans crossed over and broke the filibuster that the Republicans tried to put against the jobs bill.
(A filibuster does not require any votes. A single senator can conduct a filibuster until a vote of cloture cuts it off.)
The Republicans have initiated filibusters against 80% of the legislation introduced by the Democrats under Obama -- forcing the requirement of a super-majority to pass those issues.
0
adaydream
All these are results of george bush; war, tax breaks, war, Rx Drug program, recession...
But back to Colin Powell. I believe Colin Powell much more than I do dick cheney. Powell has admitted that his testimony in front of the UN that there were WMD and all kinds of stuff. That he went with what he was given and it was the low point of his career. dick cheney still repeats the same lies at American Legion halls. Like they were never debunked. < :-)
0
Molenir
40 years, of constant, bickering and argument over an issue that is clearly not settled. Sorry, you know better then this. Besides, I'm a constitutionalist, more then I'm a conservative. :)
Meaning, that once again, no filibuster has occurred. They tried, and failed to get one. A few Senators getting together to try to stop a bill, does not a filibuster make. If 59 Senators vote for Cloture, and 41 oppose it, then you have a filibuster. That is it! Likewise if 41 or more Senators announce they will oppose it, then you have a threatened filibuster that often stops legislation. Is this really that hard to understand? Really? Come on Yabits, you're smarter then this. Or are you just so stubborn that you can't possibly be wrong on anything. When I'm wrong, I frequently admit it. Why can't you?
0
yabits
LOL!!!
The last time you copped that stance, you insisted that the Republicans controlled the 110th Congress (wrong), which set the record for filibustering (true, but will be surpassed by the Republican minority in the 111th).
Even FOX News understands this.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/graham-blames-reid-for-record-filibusters/
0
yabits
This kind of arrogance, born of obvious ignorance, is why moderates like Colin Powell are distancing themselves from what is passing for mainstream Republicanism. Powell is a decent person, and that is something that can't be said for his detractors.
Taking the issue of Powell's moderate stances, some people find themselves called "disingenuous and dishonest" because they happen to find themselves in a concensus view with a conservative organization that looks at a person's entire voting record -- and NOT a view tied to one arrogant individual's own definition of "liberal" based upon one or two of his personal pet issues. Just as in this thread, Powell's action of supporting Barack Obama was called "as racist as it gets."
Powell has set himself against Cheney and other Republican critics and obstructionists in a very interesting way, and I admire him for taking his stance. It shows far more wisdom and integrity than pretending, for example, that because a filibuster was defeated by a cloture vote, the filibuster never happened at all. (Of course, this is ludicrous: what failed to happen was the maintaining of the filibuster.)
This selective and highly personal definition of words is at the root of so much of the loony conservatism that decent folks like Powell want to distance themselves from. For example, when a noted conservative (and current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) asserts that a noted case is indeed "settled law," that is not good enough for the arrogant obstructionists who want to pretend, for personal reasons, that it is not.
0
Molenir
And I admitted I was wrong, and you were right. Something you apparently can't do. You may be correct that Republicans in this congress will surpass all other congresses in the number of filibusters, but as of yet, they've only got what, 1, on an appointee.
And it is. You admitted as much, that Powell endorsed Obama based on the color of his skin. Sure it wasn't the only factor, but it was a factor. I sure as hell didn't look at Obama and say, well, I don't like him because he's black, but I really don't like him because of his politics. No, for me, race had nothing to do with it. If McCain had been Black, and Obama white, I would have chosen the same. Would Powells endorsement have been different? Thats what makes it racist. Now is Powell a racist, perhaps its splitting hairs, but that I wouldn't believe. I think a person can make a racist decision, and not be a racist.
And I am still amused that you simply cannot admit to being wrong. Your infallability over this issue is simply stunning. The idea that 1 Senator, if he was so inclined, could filibuster every single bill is simply idiocy. Again, you need 41 votes in order to successfully pull off a filibuster. Until very recently, Republicans did not have this. Contrast this with Republicans in the previous congress, and Dems in the congress before that. How many actual filibusters were there? How many bills were blocked, or delayed by the opposition party. How about now. You know the answer, even if you won't admit it.
0
yabits
No, you've got it bass-ackwards -- as usual. A party needs 60-votes to successfully defeat a filibuster.
It used to be that the vast majority of legislation could be passed with a basic majority of 51 votes. Now, nearly everything introduced by the Democratic majority has to be passed by two-thirds, (or 60 votes). Why? The record use of the filibuster by Republicans. If the Republicans did not signal to the Democrats that they are going to filibuster, the Democrats would only need 51 votes to pass anything -- which they could easily do.
It's not infallibility. It's the simple act of having one's facts straight.
That is nothing but pure conjecture on your part, and leads to a false accusation. Had the Republicans put up someone like Steele or the psychotic Alan Keyes, it is very easy to envision Colin Powell endorsing a Chris Dodd or Evan Bayh. You can't envision it because of your own racist tendencies towards the man.
The first sentence is an outright falsehood. I never admitted any such thing. Race, in Powell's decision, was nowhere near any kind of a "scale-tipping" factor. It is the racist Republicans who want to pretend that it was in Powell's mind. And then take it to extremes by saying that an insignificant factor constitutes something "as racist as it gets."
As though the insignificant factor of race in Powell's decision were somehow equivalent to burning a cross on a person's lawn. (That's an act about as "racist as it gets.")
0
Molenir
You're being silly here Yabits. If I go and get elected Senator, something I'd never do cause I have no interest in being a politician, but if I did, and then chose to delay or "filibuster" every peice of legislation. According to you, that congress would set a record for most filibusters. Sorry, but thats nonsense and you know it. A filibuster blocks or delays legislation. If Dems have the votes to override it, then again, the Republicans haven't delayed it, much less stopped it. No, you need to get this straight Yabits. A cloture vote, does not equal a filibuster.
I believe you can cast the blame for this right back at Dems. It was they who first used this tactic, Republicans merely took after them when they lost power. Perhaps they used it more then the Dems did, and now that they have 41 votes again, perhaps they'll be able to again. Btw, I do oppose this idea of needing 60 votes in order to accomplish anything, although considering how bad Obamas proposals have been, I have to make an exception for some of these laws.
0
yabits
A record would depend upon the number of pieces of legislation brought to vote in the senate, but yes, you would be on track for filibustering 100% of the time. Each piece would need 60 votes just to be brought up for a vote. There are at least two other forms of filibustering: outright holds on appointments and the introduction of resolution after resolution -- each of which has to be read and thus stalls for time.
0
maxtheitpro
From reading all of these comments, it's clear that more political parties with a large fanatical membership is required to challenge the Democratic/Republican control of government and US politics in general. To say the US is a democracy is just a big farce. 2 parties that are always vying for power? Where are coalitions like in Germany? Nough said.
0
yabits
You should check out the following topic on JT:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/republicans-setting-filibuster-record
It could do a lot to overturn more of your misperceptions. After all, this week saw one Republican senator, Jim Bunning of KY, filibustering a bill to extend unemployment benefits to jobless Americans -- many Americans having been made jobless as a result of Republican mismanagement of the U.S. government's regulatory responsibilities.
Back to top