Colin Powell

Colin Powell endorsed Obama today on "Meet the Press," and gave a seemingly reasoned account of why he wants to vote for him over his friend "for 25 years" McCain. However, he neglects many facts in his degradation of the Republican Party, and in his assessment of the Democrats and Obama as better, which I will now try to fully parse.

He begins by stating that both candidates are distinguished Americans who are patriotic and dedicated to the welfare of our country. First of all, what distinctions does Senator Obama actually have? He has been a Illinois Senator where he voted "present" more than 100 times; he was a US Senator where his sole accomplishment was running for President and duping the Democrats into picking him instead of Hillary. He is chairman of a subcommittee that he has never convened. What has he actually DONE in these positions to make him "distinguished" besides hold the seat? The second point that is wrong with this statement is that he is "Patriotic." Every single speech he has given has been negative toward America -- he denounced us in front of his inflated German audience even. He always speaks as if this country were the worst in the history of the world and that we should drastically change in the direction of the European countries that cannot compete with us. Just last week he scrapped the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance at a rally in order to have another speaker -- What an America-loving Patriot!

Powell then discussed the direction the party has taken, a turn "right" in the past few years. That's funny, Bush is not a conservative in the way that most people want, he has a social view with which we tend to agree, but he is a spender and his fiscal liberalism is coming out more and more as he discusses the need to forcibly nationalize banks and socialize the economy. republicans even nominated the most liberal Republican Senator to be the President of the United States. How is that a right turn that troubles you? We conservatives HATE McCain's policies in many ways, but again he agrees with us like Bush agrees with us. The turn seems to be in our energy over Sarah Palin's appointment, because she more closely resembles what we want in a candidate. Most people do not seem to see the huge difference between the time before Palin and after Palin on this ticket. The difference is that Republicans are finally involved at all in the process. Before, we were voting for two Democrats, one leaning right, the other toppling left. With Palin, who will be discussed later on, we finally have at least SOMEONE who shares our core beliefs, be them the compassionate beliefs of Bush or the Conservative beliefs of Reagan. (And notice that Obama is pandering to the crowd... he even quotes Reagan, but he is lying through his teeth).

Powell then gave the advice that he gave to Obama, which may either be a talking point from Obama or may have been the creation of a talking point for Obama. He said "You have to prove whether you have enough experience, or whether you have the 'judgment.'" Judgment has been Obama's word for "my inexperience, knowledge and eloquence solely from a teleprompter, and having to study really hard for debates doesn't matter at all." And Powell seems to accept the premise that someone with no experience, who criticizes pretty much everything that Powell did in his life, good or bad, as bad, has enough "judgment" to be President. Therefore, an endorsement of Obama is him basically saying "my life and service to this country was all for the wrong reasons and I should not have done it." It especially states that his time as Secretary of State was wasted and detrimental, which only Democrats and those countries that dislike us actually believe.

He then discusses the past 6-7 weeks of the campaign, the "final exam" as he calls it. He says McCain was "unsure" as to how to deal with it. At least he tried! Obama left the job to the "real" Senators, McCain included, waited for the plan to be made before even attempting to think about the issue. He also derided McCain, who was only trying to do his actual job, as "playing politics," while McCain was not actually responding to attacks. Then he says that McCain had a "different approach" to the economic problem everyday. What about Obama? Once he started making suggestions for solutions (when his surrogates had finally come up with it for him), he changed nearly every day as well. Neither candidate handled and is handling the economic crisis in the right way. Even the current administration is fumbling around with it, and they have actual power... not just words.

He then made his way to Governor Palin. He does not believe that she is ready to be President of the United States. Well, guess what, she won't be President. The job of Vice President is to "take up" the Presidency in the event that the actual President cannot fulfill his duties. She will not BE President on day one, and even if she were, she has just as much experience (if not more), probably a better temperament, and an actual understanding of the American people as a whole (minus perhaps the Hollywood types who believe the exact opposite of her... and are the loud voices that falsely lead people to believe that they are mainstream) -- all things that Obama struggles with.

I keep thinking back to Newt Gingrich on MSNBC the night of Lieberman's Convention speech, slamming that stupid reporter (Ron Allen) who merely asked him the Democrat's talking points question: "[Her resume] is stronger than Barack Obama's. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She's has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaska National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistle blower who defeated an incumbent mayor, he has never once shown that kind of courage. She was a whistle blower who turned in the Chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write. And I'd like you to tell me one thing you think Senator Obama has done." And the reporter cut the conversation without a response. This is a resume of elections tougher than Obama's entire career. Obama has not actually dealt with an unfavorable media, with the possible exception of Fox News, but this is only on two fronts -- 1.) Sean Hannity, and 2.) the fact that Fox News actually reports negative stories about BOTH candidates. Obama said that if it weren't for Fox News, he would be 20 points ahead of McCain. However, if it weren't for MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Time Magazine, and scores of other publications, he would never have broken 30% in the polls. The media gets its tingly feelings when he speaks, which seem to deafen their ears to the fact that he never says anything intelligible. And they spew forth the talking points that his campaign gives them in advance.

As for what Powell saw these past 7 weeks in Obama, he says "I saw a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this, and picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be President on Day 1, and also in not just jumping in and changing everyday, but showing intellectual vigor. I believe he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well." Okay, where to start? I guess I'll go in order. As for steadiness, he was very steady in one respect -- he did not involve himself at all in solving the crisis. He was steady in attacking McCain for trying to help with it, and in attacking the Bush administration for "getting us here," despite the fact that it was the Democratic "Community Reinvestment Act" and Clinton's enforcement of it, with the help of left-leaning community activist groups with legal teams, who forced bad loans to be given out, then sold to Fannie and Freddie. But after the plan was even accepted he came out with at least 7 plans on how to save the economy. The problem with HIS plans, rather than McCain's 7 or so plans, is that Obama never replaced his plans. He just added them onto each other. He built up a huge plan full of ideas that enrage some but include others, to the point where no one likes the whole plan, but some part of it modestly helps each individual. However, anyone who knows about the economy would see that none of them would actually solve the problem, but would rather extend relief that allows the problem to continue until a politician comes along to actually fix it.

Secondly, Powell said he had "intellectual curiosity." Doesn't this just mean that he had no idea what he was doing and wanted to learn? Shouldn't we have someone who doesn't need education when they are facing crises? Thirdly, "depth of knowledge?" That's an oxymoron. Except in the hard sciences, a depth of knowledge dilutes intellectual curiosity. If you know huge amounts of information about a subject, your intellectual curiosity fades, because you KNOW about the subject. If you know what to do, because you have a depth of knowledge, you probably would GO TO THE SENATE AND TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, rather than continue campaigning. Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Look to Obama's performance in the first debate, where he avoided the questions on the economy, especially those involving the economic crisis and the bailout plan. This is because he did not know what to say -- he had only been trained on the Foreign Policy section of the debate.

Powell then discussed Biden as "ready to be President on Day 1." While I do not doubt that he could probably do it, I am forced to ask the question "Do we really want that?" Biden has many judgment faults. He was against the First Gulf War (a response to Saddam's attack of Kuwait), then he became its biggest supporter (when it was politically popular). He then became, as most Democrats were, very eager to change the regime of Iraq, until a Republican came along to do just that. He changes his mind based on political winds, not on principle. He is a Democrat, and will agree with anything they say, even when they contradict themselves. He also has a tendency to lie about his connection to the people. "Home Depot," "plumbers in my neighborhood," restaurants that he "regulars" that close 20 years ago -- He lies, claiming to be a man of the people without thinking that he has no idea what normal people are or do. He is a rich Washington insider, which, on its face, is not a bad thing (I hate the talk that "Washington insiders" ruin everything -- some do, some try to help). However, going home to your kids everyday does not make you a "man of the people;" it makes you a "father." Just as no one says Sarah Palin's "being a mother" is a qualification; "being a father" should not be for Biden and Obama.

Powell then says that as Republicans narrow their focus, Obama is reaching across lines. These lines are "ethnic," "racial," and "generational." Okay, he is crossing ethnic and racial lines in ads like his immigration ad that portrays McCain as "against immigration," despite the fact that McCain sponsored the Amnesty Bill. He crosses this line by, as his surrogates have revealed to be his plan, "appearing white" in white audiences and "being black" in black audiences. He is pandering to crowds, and many young people (those "generational lines") are too stupid to see what he's doing, so he attracts them. Young people are attracted to him because he preaches "Change" for its own sake. He says, the last eight years have been bad according to the media and polls, so we will make the next generation far worse. Biden said it was an "inflection point," where the choice here will guide us far into our future, on an unstoppable course. This rhetoric is very powerful, but the problem is that the turn toward Obama and Biden is a turn toward a tree. Notice though, that Powell never states that Obama reaches across party lines... and those lines divide the country far more than race or ethnicity. The line between conservative and liberal is a defining line in this country, more than half of the population is conservative or leaning that way, and those people are not the ones that Obama reaches out to. He reaches out to people who already have his beliefs, or are easily swayed toward that path with promises of money, class warfare, and programs that cannot possibly be delivered in a way that is promised, especially during tumultuous economic times. He is reaching across lines that he already stands upon -- he reaches from the line to either side, and only in words, never in action.

As Powell said, "He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values not just small towns have values." First, this is because those that share his own values are not those of small towns, but those of metropolitan cities that generally have different and often more unfavorable values with regard to life and morality and all those things that people hold dear besides politics. Second, "he's thinking about" is very telling... he does not act for people, when has he ever? He merely thinks and talks and writes. But when it comes time to make a hard decision, he hesitates, he shirks responsibility, he votes present. How can Powell not see after all his years of service that deeds must always speak louder than words?

The Powell addressed Ayers, and how this "very limited" terrorist connection should not be used to call Obama "tainted." I agree to an extent. It is not the connection, or even the fact that Ayers was a terrorist that is at stake here. It is that the policies that Ayers and Obama came up with on those boards together are extremely damaging to the educational system. His priorities when alloting money from these boards were tainted, giving moneys to ACORN, Jeremiah Wright's Church, to schools not to enhance academic programs but to supplant them with political activist training. It is not a problem that Obama worked with a terrorist, despite the fact that if McCain had "palled around with" Timothy McVey, this would be a completely different issue, despite the fact that McVey and Ayers are essentially the same. It is a problem that while working with Ayers, he was funneling money to causes that are abhorrent to the American educational system, financial system, and even religious system. He demonstrated what he would actually do, rather than what he says that he will do. Again, this is Powell's acceptance of Obama talking points, and again he stated that the party moved to the right, again despite the fact that the most liberal Republican member of the Senate is the candidate.

Then he says he would "have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." There is a problem with this statement. First, who is likely to retire? Stevens will certainly retire in the next term (he has been waiting eight years for Bush's term to end). But who is the other justice who will retire to make a "gain" for the conservatives? Ginsberg? Souter? The problem here is terminology. A "Conservative Judge" can be a liberal person. This judge can believe in abortion, but still rule against it. The Constitution says very specific things about where the ability to create laws regarding abortion and other issues lay, and it never is with the Courts. The Tenth Amendment gives it to the states, Article I Section 8 Clause 18 gives it essentially to the Congress (so long as they can prove that it is a law that is within one of their other enumerated powers). It never says in the Constitution that an unelected council of 9 legal minds are allowed to make policy in any form, which is what Roe v. Wade is...Policy. That is why it is a bad decision, because the Court overstepped its bounds, and who is there to "check" the Courts on this ground? Nobody. Why is it scary or bad to have judges that would look to the Constitution, rather than to their own political leanings on issues in order to decide whether laws violate the constitution or not? Why is it necessary to have judges that make decisions based solely on sociological research or polls rather than on the law and the Constitution? This has always baffled me, as I have been interested in the Court for quite some time, and I aspire to one day be a legal mind worthy of being a judge, whether or not at that height. I do not doubt at all any of their qualifications, but I doubt their philosophies. The Constitution grants very limited powers to the Federal Government, but the amount of revenue that it has decided to take in is a clear attempt to justify breaking those bounds.

The next part of Powell's monologue I actually wholeheartedly agree with. He said the "really right answer" to allegations that Obama is a Muslim is "what if he is?" I believe that religion does not, and should not disqualify someone from becoming President. It should be their views, their temperament, their experience, their plans or lack thereof, their world outlook (which, admittedly, could come from religion), and their outlook on this country. We would never accept someone who hates America as much as Michael Moore become President, so why will we make someone who has that same disposition toward it become President. Not all Islamic people are terrorists, least of all here in the United States. And so this should neither be a qualifying nor a disqualifying factor in the election inherently. This was the only thing that Powell said in his endorsement reasoning that was neither a talking point of Obama's nor something that could be widely disputed using actual facts and not just the opinion of an Obama supporter.

The closing of the endorsement was very upsetting though, so I will quote it below:

"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire; because of the inclusive nature of his campaign; because he is reaching out all across America; because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, and we have to take that into account; as well as his substance, he has both style and substance; he has met the standard of being a successful President, being an exceptional President. I think he is a transformational figure; he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, and for that reason I will be voting for Senator Barack Obama."

While this is probably the best, most eloquent endorsement I have heard for any candidate since Reagan's endorsement of Goldwater (I'm not that old, I just love the "Time for Choosing" Speech that he gave at Goldwater's Convention), I cannot agree with his assessment of Barack Obama in any sense, even in the rhetorical sense. He is utterly dependent on a teleprompter to tel him what to say, and while he can read well and perform when he has the lines, so can Tina Fey or Will Farrell, neither of whom would ever be qualified for President. I will not parse the entire statement, but I have to disagree specifically with one other part... "style and substance." Obama does not have any substance. He talks. He has no record of action that would at all indicate that what comes from his mouth is his own opinion, much less that it would be acted upon in his administration. To be fair, McCain has about the same amount of substance, always stating that he will make some broad action, but not how. This election has been devoid of substance, but Obama seems to fake it better to some people.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Colin Powell beyond measure. He has one of the most distinguished careers of anyone who has lived in America in its history. He has obviously thought long and hard about the choice that he will make on election day, and he has given a wonderfully glowing endorsement that was not read from a teleprompter, but rather given from the heart. He knows so much about the world, and must truly believe that these are the things that Obama represents, but I must disagree with the premises and those opinions. Powell does not look specifically to the policies and compare them to what has happened in the past using similar if not the same plans. He looks to the future and sees what he thinks, or rather what Obama says that the Democratic plans will promote, and likes it. However, Obama is in a long line of leaders that create plans that slowly degrade the economy, military, and prestige of America -- from Franklin Roosevelt whose New Deal could not bring us out of the Great Depression and cannot be sustained even now, to LBJ whose Great Society has needed a complete overhaul since that disastrous Presidency, to Jimmy Carter, who laid the foundations for the current economic trauma. This country cannot afford to have another Democratic President before the mistakes of the last ones have been corrected.