Colin Powell

It comes as no surprise that former Secretary of State Colin Powell and an African-American General would chose to endorse Barack Obama the African-American Candidate for President of the United States. I still feel Obama is not qualified to lead this Country however I will say that if Colin Powell or Condi Rice ever chose to Run for President of the United States I would not have any reservations about either of them being Commander-In-Chief. And I would also Vote for Colin Powell or Condi Rice for President.

beatles1964

And if Obama is Elected the next President of the United States I think the History books will only remember him for one thing, being the first African-American President. Plus he will also forever be Immortalized as a Trivia Question on JEOPARDY and in Trivial Pursuit too.

beatles1964

If he manages to make his Presidency so uneventful that he will be remembered only for that, then I would consider that a great victory :)

Why? That would mean he would never have been tested to show he deserved to be President of the United States if he never had to make real difficult decisions. I think that would make him look like a weak, incompetent President. Because all everyone would say is, Oh, Yea Barack Obama he was the first African-American President and wasn't known for anything else.

beatles1964

>1 beatles1964:

If your mind is so impoverished as to believe that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama simply because he was black, then that means you are delusional. But being delusional is not a crime, it is only sad and pathetic.

If Colin Powell is finally getting away from his sycophantic following of a Republican Party who doesn't even like blacks and 'minorities', great.

I hope Obama wins. McCain is a war mongerer and will continue Bush's failed 8 years of policies designed to help the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes.

I saw Colin Powell's interview on Meet the Press and his endorsement of Obama was heartfelt but with a tinge of sadness over what he considered major major mistakes by John McCain specifically in his choosing of Sarah Palin as his running mate-I refuse to believe that endorsement came simply because Powell and Obama share the same skin color

#1

I'm not sure what any of your post has to do with Colin Powell. Powell is highly regarded internationally and across most of the political spectrum at home. The significance of his endorsement for Obama is that it undercuts claims that Obama is under qualified. Another significant part of Powell's message is that a staunch Republican has called his own party too narrow to support right now.

#2/4 - the tests for the next president are already out there (care of W?)

1. Biggest recession since the Great Depression
2. Iraq/Afghanistan
3. Global Warming*

*Almost all parties now agree Global Warming is a major issue, even Sarah Palin - probably one of the most non-green major politicians. However, I still doubt there is a consensus on how critical reducing CO2 emissions is for the climate right now, and how critical the next four years are. If the scientific community is correct, then the next ten years of action or inaction will have immense effects on the climate in most of our lifetimes (source The Weather Makers). The last 8 years of W inaction will be remembered. It means that a huge turn in momentum needs to occur in the next four years.

McCain has been 'tested' during this economic crisis and he performed in a skittish, amateurish manner. Do you want a "maverick" in difficult times? McCain scares me more than Obama. For all I know, McCain will go to war with Russia whenever Putin looks at him cross-eyed. In foreign policy, McCain may be more dangerous than G. W. Bush because McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war in his head (Bush just thought he was receiving orders from God). I don't want a President with a lot of psychological demons and baggage in control of the nuclear option.

As for Powell: in an odd way, he needs to be associated with Obama more than Obama needs his endorsement. This recommendation helps to rehabilitate Powell's tarnished political standing. When was the last time anyone took Powell seriously? Certainly, not since his song and dance at the UN was exposed by the failure to find the WMDs Powell so confidently described.

Look, I'm not knocking Colin Powell only his obvious choice as to who he chose to endorse for President. Colin Powell made a great Secretary of State leader and I am not saying anything against him as General in the Military either. Colin Powell would make a great U.S. President if he ever decided to run for the Office. But everyone knows how racially divided this whole Presidential Campaign has been. However, it just seems to me he only chose to endorse Obama because he is African-American. Oprah did exactly the same thing earlier when she decided to endorse Obama too.

beatles1964

But everyone know how racially divided this whole Presidential Campaign has been.

Still worried about those riots? Better look out, Powell & Oprah are planning them right now.

Look, I hope no one out there thinks I am a Racist because I certainly am not one. As I have said before in other posts I firmly believe that either Powell or Condi Rice would make a much better President than Obama ever would. Both of them have proven their leadership abilities again and again in times of crisis just like John McCain has done too.

beatles1964

The fact that you think Condi Rice would make a good president is more disturbing to me than anything else you've said in this thread.

Because both Colin Powell and Condi Rice have dealt with major problems and Obama is an unknown quantity who has never been tested before in his entire life. Unlike McCain who served his Country during a critical time in this Country's history during the Vietnam War.

beatles1964

#11 Medellia - thanks for the link.

Beatles - you must be very surprised at what Powell actually said. He seems to have left out that critical point that his support is because because Obama has African ancestry. Instead he described Obama's "inclusive nature." Clearly he must have mistaken what he really felt. Anyway here is a Powell excerpt.

"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 you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance," Powell said. "He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

Well, I got it straight from Rush, Powell's endorsement is ALL ABOUT RACE. Rush said it! I believe it!

Hmmmm, do you think cody is one of Rush's alter ego's?

Medellia12

The best part about a riot organized by Oprah will be the tasteful gift baskets handed out at the end (no doubt with one of her Book Club books, which will please even the most hard-boiled Republican among the LTers).

#17: And if we're lucky, we'll all get A BRAND NEW CAR!! EVERYBODY GETS A CAR!!

"Unlike McCain who served his Country during a critical time in this Country's history during the Vietnam War."

He was an active soldier. yes. But does *that* qualify him for a leadership position in one of the biggest countries on the planet. Far less than the experience he gained later on, IMO. The service experience is in my opinion at the same level as a position in local politics, at best (mayor of a village/small town, member of province parliament, etc.).

From an outsider perspective, Colin Powel seemed a rather levelheaded politician, and as the Sec. of State he needed considerable diplomatic skills, which would come in more than handy were he a candidate for the presidency. He did drop a clanger with the WMD affair though (at that level in government, I simply do not believe that "they lied to me." Condoleezza Rice hasn't left an impression in her term, from my perspective, so I cannot say much about her.

Medellia: Yes! Cars! And a free subscription to "O" magazine.

geneg: that could have been the Oxycontin talking, not the real Rush.

How can codyed not join a discussion about race? Could it be that he's already here?

I have ambivalent feelings about Powell. He seems like a decent man, but I also believe that he is the one person in the Bush Administration that could have put the brakes on (or at least have given some meaningful hindrance to) the march to war with Iraq.

He got up in front of the UN and gave "information" that he knew beforehand (if multiple accounts are true) was based on lies and deception. I don't know the man's psychology, but I would hope he deeply regrets having his good reputation used to such deceitful ends. It's very difficult to regain one's reputation once it has been sullied, and it is a measure of the man that Powell has managed to keep his reputation largely intact.

That experience, as well as having spent some time in the Bush snakepit probably underlines to Powell the importance of rational, optimistic leadership. The idea that a complex man such as Powell would endorse anyone based on skin color is simplistic and absurd. He knows McCain. He looks at him and is worried about what he sees. That in itself ought to be enough to make him look towards Obama.

Well, I am worried about what I see about Obama. This whole Presidential Campaign has been mainly about Race because Obama was getting between 92-93% of the African-American Votes against Hillary and that speaks volumes about this being about Race. Plus I believe people are Voting for Obama because they want to say they helped Elect the first African-American President in U.S. History.

beatles1964

Could this be part of the reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama?

Amusing bit from a Washington Post blog yesterday:
"There isn't one pundit in America -- not one human being, for that matter -- who could have predicted that a black man would run for president in 2008 and would wind up being called an arugula-eating, passionless elitist who doesn't know what it's like to be a plumber. We live in mysterious times."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/

24
So, he should forget all the policy positions, speeches, debates, etc., because the message means nothing? His poll standings would be the same regardless, because its really all about skin color?

Man, I wish I could live in such a simplistic universe.

(Actually, I'm glad I don't.)

25
The illustration, at least, speaks volumes. This is, remember, a guy that lost 5 airplanes (although to be fair, one was accidently fired upon by another plane on an aircraft carrier - hmmm, accidentally?).

There was apparently a certain amount of resentment among his peers that the Admiral's son got a covet flight assignment, despite doing abyssmally poor at Annapolis.

Sorry for multiple messages, but I want to clarify that race does, to some extent play a part in this contest. However, it is clear that it plays a much more significant part for the anti-Obama folks than it does for the pro-Obama voters.

If anyone wishes to rationalize their own issues/problems with race by foisting them on the other side ("you're only voting for him because he's black!", a pretty common -not to say tedious - refrain in these threads), knock yourself out, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

By the way, I bust a gut everytime I hear some conservative show their color-blindness by saying "Hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell or Condi Rice." How sweet! Nothing like a nice "safe" Negro!

It's like saying, "Why no, we have no compunction about leaving little Eva at home with ol' Tom!"

Please.

I think if McCain had chosen an African-American to be his Vice-Presidential Running Mate instead of Sarah Palin, McCain would be leading Obama in all of the Polls right now because people would be excited about him having chosen an African-American VP and the possibility of the VP becoming President if anything happened to McCain giving us our first African-American President.

beatles1964

30
Do you actually read any of the other comments, or are you just stuck out there in your own little world?

Of course I read everyone else's postings here too.

beatles1964

Beatles, I hate to say this, but you really sound like you don't know jack shit 'bout nothin' and as often as you've been offered opportunities to learn to continue to come across as so unaware is disheartening to say the least. People like you elected BushCo twice and it's people like you who may elect John McCain. Why do you simply refuse to educate yourself about the low down on what's up?

This election is about people's lives and livelihoods, not some tribalistic mantra about race and liberals. The country is falling down around our ears due to thirty years of Republican mismanagement and you want to believe we like Obama because it assuages some guilt over race.

I guess like the man said a long time ago, "Ignorance is bliss".

The Republicans haven't been in the White House for the last 30 years. In between we've had four years of Jimmy Carter and eight years of Bill Clinton.

beatles1964

See, that's what I mean Beatles, there have only been, at most six years, of the twelve that saw a Democratic President, in which that President served with one or both houses in the majority in Congress. BTW, ten of the last thirty years saw a Democratic President, twice as many years the president has been a Republican, and of the last twelve years prior to 2007 Congress has been Republican in one or both houses. (I'm having a dickens of a time corroborating this, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The point is two-thirds of the last thirty years has been spent with a Republican president and/or weak Democratic majorities in one or the other house of Congress. While six of the last eight years was spent with the entire government in the hands of the Republicans.

Without majorities in Congress, a President can just about keep the ship afloat, but not really effect much policy, except that policy approved by the party in power in congress. For six of Clinton's eight years he was constantly fighting the republican majority in the House. Clinton, policywise, was more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Democrat, anyway. Carter's last year was consumed by the Iran Hostage Crisis and a Republican party intent on conducting its own covert foreign policy, which by the way is unconstitutional, but then the Republicans have never been one to let such foundational niceties get in the way of their slow-motion coup.

ETA: Thinking about the disrespect Carter was given at the hands of Reagan, I would like to see Obama send Bush on a farewell to the troops tour of the Middle East, beginning Jan. 19 and ending Jan.21.

You're not making any sense Beatles. If you respected Powell then why would you suspect that he would endorse someone solely because of their race? And if you think he made the endorsement solely for his race why would you still respect him? I am led to believe that you don't really respect him and you said you did so that you wouldn't sound like a racist. That, or you're a troll and you don't mean any of it.

I would say that white guys were only endorsing McCain because he is white, but I can't seem to find any white guys who endorse him.

I'm certainly not a troll or a racist.Why do you think Oprah endorsed Obama earlier? Because he's African-American with a very good chance of becoming the next U.S. President. I do respect Colin Powell for his leadership and service to this Country. OK, let me set the record straight here once and for all so there won't be any confusion or questions about why I said what I did. And I do think Colin Powell would make a great U.S President. First off I never saw his interview on TV about why he chose to endorse Obama over McCain. I guess it was just a wrong assumption on my part to say he only endorsed Obama because he is African-American and endorsing the African-American Candidate. However, I do think that because Obama is African-American that is part of the reason why he got 92-93% if the African-American Voters against Hillary in the Democratic Primaries. And I do Apologize for my earlier remarks to everyone in Pro and Con and also in LT for assuming he only endorsed Obama because he is African-American. I am actually a very nice, kind, thoughtful, caring person. People like me a lot. I think we could all become good friends here if you all were ever to get to know me personally. Besides this Political Campaign Season has brought out the worst in a lot of people.Especially since the Left-Wing Media here has been rooting for Obama since the Democratic Primaries first started and they are still making Obama their clear cut personal favorite Candidiate. But as we all know Race has played and is still playing a part in the Presidential Election.

beatles1964

I really liked the part about how McCain would pull in all the African American support if he had chosen and African American candidate.

We see how well that worked in getting the female vote with Sarah Palin. I hear all women will now be voting for McCain. Not.

If you really respect Powell, how can you then say that in one of the most important decisions he has to make this year, which presidential candidate to support, you totally disagree with him, to the point where you clearly think anyone who would vote for Obama has straw for brains.

Hey, Artic-Stranger don't go putting words in my mouth. Of course this is a Free and Democratic Country and people are allowed to Vote for whoever they feel free to Vote for. This is not a Communist State or Dictatorship where people tell you who to Vote for or to do anything else for that matter. But Obama certainly has had more than his share of bad judgments on who he chooses to associate himself with. We all know about Reverend Wright, Donald Ayres, Father Flager, Rezko and everyone else too. Plus his statements like, People cling to Religion and Guns, Iran is not a threat to the U.S., etc.

beatles1964

Just one more thing beatles. Every democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy has gotten 80%+ of the African American vote, so saying African Americans are voting for Obama by 92% because he's one of them doesn't have much meaning. African Americans always vote hugely, heavily Democratic.

I will concede your point about Oprah, although I think it is still more complex than "He's black, so I'm voting for him". That's probably seventy-five percent of it with her.

I was watching George Stephanopolous, Sunday, and one of his guests was Newt Gingrich, who was saying some pretty unkind things about Obama in that intellectual way of being unkind, but only recognized as such by paying close attention. Anyway, it dawned on me that several months ago when Newt and Obama sat down to talk, Newt realized for once in his life he wasn't the smartest guy in the room. I think that's what really has the right concerned. That they aren't smart enough to keep up with him.

I think that the number of people black or white who are voting for Obama because he is black is balanced by the number of people who won't vote for him because he's black. We'll never really know which group is larger.

McCain is behind in the polls and conservatives just can't figure it out. I love how they cast about for reasons that might turn the tide in a more favorable direction. Using the script they've inherited from Atwater-Rove, they look to find flaws in their opponent. What they fail to do is to look at the problems in their own candidates. I give credit to those conservatives who have described Sarah Palin as a disaster of major proportions: they've been repaid by being dismissed as "elitist."

I still don't see what recommends McCain so clearly over Obama, even including his "experience." Being a prisoner of war is surely not a pleasant thing, but I don't see it as being any "plus" in McCain's background. His vast foreign policy reach led him to support Bush and Cheney's excellent adventure in Iraq. His erratic behavior -- apparent in flip flops on the Bush tax policy, immigration, torture -- gives me no confidence that he won't be equally erratic as president (this is luxury for a Senator, who wishes to embrace his inner maverick; it is a potential nightmare for the world if such a person commands super-power resources). His campaign has virtually nothing to say about the economy that separates it from the Bush years. The nation clamors for health care reform, and McCain offers to tax health care benefits that derive from employers. McCain denounces the evil of socialism and welfarism, and yet votes for a $700 bn welfare package for the banking industry. His basic economic ideas are now bound up with the fate of Joe the Plumber, who apparently will be on McCain's council of economic advisors. The Onion couldn't write better copy than this.

First off I never saw his interview on TV about why he chose to endorse Obama over McCain. I guess it was just a wrong assumption on my part to say he only endorsed Obama because he is African-American and endorsing the African-American Candidate.

This assumption was careless, racist and very very ignorant. I'm surprised you were willing to post this before bothering to listen the Powell's statements. I find this all very offensive, and I'm glad you've apologized. Now it's time you reexamined all your other assumptions and see if you can find a shred of fact to support them in anyway. Although you say you are not racist, your assumptions are just that. Maybe it's subconscious.

I guess I'm just PO'd by this thread.

dchaikin I'm Truly Very, Very Sorry for offending you and everyone else here in Pro and Con and the rest of LT too. I admit some of my previous statements may have been really thoughtless and inconsiderate of me to say the things that I did and I do Apologize from the bottom of my heart for all these words and the mistaken assumptions on my part. Believe it or not, I really am not a racist. And I am a very friendly, kind, nice, considerate, caring, fun person to be around with a great sense of humor.

beatles1964

Bah, never mind.

>4 beatles1964: No. That would mean he had the management skills and foresight to anticipate and deal with issues before they become crisis.

The person that's always riding in at the last minute to 'save the day', thrives on crisis, has to make publically touted "difficult decisions", is not someone you want doing the hard, boring, detailed work of day to day management. It's really two different skill sets.

Beatles, the irritation you're getting from others is due to your unwillingness or inability to consider that there may be other reasons for Powell to endorse Obama than the simple matter of skin color. That's an incredibly superficial suggestion, which does not pay respect to the depth of Powell's knowledge and experience.

There are widely divergent opinions in this country about race, and it's best not to brand someone "racist" based on their own ill-conceived assumptions. But put a little thought into it, and you may realize why others find your original post simplistic and obnoxious. And finding out, way down thread, that you didn't even see the interview really confirms that you are making knee-jerk assumptions about motivations, based on race. You aren't the only one on this site that makes obnoxious assumptions based on race, but then, I do think you make them with a bit less guile and intellectual dishonesty than others, if that's any consolation.

At least you have to give me some Credit/Brownie Points for Publicly admitting here in LT and not only at Pro and Con that I have enough guts to openly Apologize to everyone else when something I have said offends other people in Pro and Con or LT in general. Which is something I don't think you see from anyone else who is called out on the carpet to defend and explain their beliefs and assumptions they may have previously stated. At least I am not against Publicly stating an Apology whenever it is called for. And these Apologies are not made just because I think that is what people want to hear from me either. They are made because I am Truly Sorry for saying something that has offended anyone and also because I want to keep the peace here in Pro and Con and LT too and I don't want everyone hating my guts or ganging up on me to kick me out of LT.

beatles1964

>36 geneg:

Thanks for that link to the Rolling Stone article.

Your memory is correct. Clinton had Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate from 1993 to 1995, but then had Republican majorities in both chambers for the remaining 6 years of his term.

Bush assumed office in 2001 with a Republican House and a tied Senate. Senator Jeffords (R Vermont) switched to Independent and caucuse with the Democrats, giving them a nominal majority until January of 2003. Republicans controlled both houses from 2003 to 2007. Democrats took small majorities in the House and the Senate in 2007 (they have a majority in the Senate only because Lieberman and Sanders caucus with them). Summary here.

Beatles, you are right about this one thing: no one else here apologizes when they disagree with the majority opinion. They don't have to, because they come prepared with information, references, and an organized thought process. Anyone who disagrees can see how they arrived at their opinions.

If you would spend some time checking the facts before posting (for example, actually watching the Powell interview), instead of posting things you heard on Fox news or got in a chain email, you might find people less likely to jump all over you.

If you don't like having your opinions challenged, you might find the Political Conservatives group to be more congenial to your worldview. I should warn you though, they take their politics very seriously, and they are more likely to cite Hayek or Schumpeter than Limbaugh.

...you might find the Political Conservatives group to be more congenial to your worldview.

But be warned, they aren't a particularly lighthearted group over there these days.

53>
Do they need a group hug?

mvrdrk>

Well put... they ARE two different people. Image is one thing--the John Wayne, "I aint here to be told no, Mister," and the subtle day to day things that aren't exactly seen but are definitely felt.

I just wish more VOTERS knew the difference.

54
Not a good idea. You're likely to pull back a bloody stub.

Beatles, Powell is not the only Republican to back Obama. I recall during the Democratic convention several Republicans actually spoke in support of him...they were not African-American by the way. I am glad to see that you have offered an apology because personally, I was quite offended by how it appears you are implying that African-American's are so shallow that they only vote based on race. What's even more disturbing is you fail to acknowledge the many non-African Americans who won't vote for Obama solely because of his race (his 50% Caucasian blood doesn't even make a difference to them, lol). How about if the tables were turned. If an influential white Democrat decided to support McCain, would you accredit that to racial affiliation or personal choice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican#External_links--a few more examples of Republicans who support Obama.

#57: Nice to find them all collected there on Wikipedia--thanks.

And don't forget--Oprah is based in Chicago. It's very common for people to support those from their state because they know them so much more than the rest of us.

And Powell said it best: if he had wanted to help Obama "win" he would've made these comments 6, 8, 10 weeks ago. His point was that, considering how this country is going right now, we need more of a 'transformation' than mere experience. That was the biggest reason he chose to support Obama.

How come there was no kind of an uproar here when in post#29 by makifat said Colin Powell and Condi Rice were a "safe" Negro! Isn't that a very offensive thing to say here? Or am I the only one who thinks the words "safe" Negro! are offensive? Is there some kind of a double standard here? If I had said those words everyone here would be calling me racist, makifat says those words and no one even thinks twice about it. I just thought I would mention this to everyone.

beatles1964

60>
I thought he was just articulating what many Republicans say behind closed doors. I don't think it is his own view.

#60: Your irony detector is malfunctioning.

Well, maybe it's just me then. It sure felt like a racist comment. But I still think people would've been offended by the comment if Beatles1964 had said the same thing. And of course, I would've wound up Apologizing for making a statement like that. I just thought that this is a perfect example of something where someone else says something that could be read as being racist and they get away with it.

beatles1964

#46: beatles1964 - I'm rereading my post #45 and thinking that whatever useful purpose my post served was certainly undercut by it's blindingly angry and disrespectful tone. (For me this is underlined only a few posts later, #49, where makifat posted has an intelligent criticism that is also as a graceful and much more respectful. ) I do appreciate your apology. It's unusual in a political discussion for someone with a strong viewpoint to admit (even to themselves) that they might be mistaken. This is unfortunate because none of us are all knowing and we all make mistakes and mistaken assumptions. Certainly I'm guilty of this. I should have been more respectful of someone willing to post questioning of themselves.

Please accept my apologies.

-d

No, see, the difference is that makifat is being sarcastic and witty, satiring what some republicans (and some democracts) probably are thinking, not all, but some.

You were being serious with your racist comments.

Well I guess I just take things too personally around here since as I have stated before elsewhere that I am a very sensitive and thin-skinned person and tend to take what is said about me to heart. Since it is never my intention to offend anyone by something I have said.

beatles1964

I just have a tendency to write the very first things to pop into my head without bothering to think twice about the statements. That may be part of my problem here or in other LT Groups.

beatles1964

Sometimes I think that LT Groups like Pro and Con is not really the best place for someone like me who is a very sensitive and thin-skinned person since things can get out of hand and often get into very heated debates or arguments. However, I think it is still a very good and excting group to be a part of. It wouldn't matter at all if I was a bit thick-skinned and not so sensitive to have things offend me so easily. But I've always been this way for years and I think it would'nt be easy for me to start changing how I am right now.

beatles1964

beatles1964 - I think that I would have deleted my messages and gone into hiding in this thread - I may not agree with a lot of what you say but I admire your sticking with this thread and working through things with the other people here.

We've had two apologies, which is infinitly more apologies than I've seen in any other political discussion, more than enough irony to cook in a steel mill and yet one more discussion of race, which must have cody laughing his derriere off. Can we just move on?

Guess we can move on, but I was hoping for an actual answer to my question. How would Beatles interpret a white Democrat deciding to endorse McCain--racial affiliation or personal choice?

Guess I didn't get a response because the answer is so darn obvious. Silly me.

Well,CutestLilBookworm that question is a very dangerous, loaded and tricky one because on the one hand if I say it's a personal choice rather than racial affiliation I will be viewed as a racist because of what I previously said about Colin Powell however on the other hand if I admit it is really racial affiliation than that goes to prove everyone else's point around here. Anyway, I'm in a no-win situation either way you look at it. I'm Damned if I do and Damned if I don't.

beatles1964

60
Yes, as some more acute posters have indicated, I was being ironic. (Thank you, by the way.)

One of the many problems with the Republican Party is that they lurch backwards and forwards on matters of ethnicity and race. Some of them have realized that they can't survive in a multicultural America without opening up to various divergent groups. The problem is, that there is a strong nativistic streak there as well, and a deep distrust and fear of the "other". What is strange is that there are various groups and ethnicities with members that may be attracted, for their own reasons, to the Republican Party. It shouldn't be considered strange for, say, an Arab-American small business owner or a gay person with concerns about national defense to join the party. But still, the Republican/conservative base operates with very strong prejudices and suspicions against persons of Middle Eastern origins, and are deeply offended, based usually on religious beliefs, by homosexuality. It's a hard slog for anyone in any of these groups to gain the trust and acceptance of the base, and in the current election cycle, the panic is so great in the party, that these folks are being thrown overboard like horses in the doldrums. The party had a choice between moving towards inclusiveness or circling the wagons - I believe they will come to rue the choices that they have made.

Colin Powell came to his conservative convictions through his life experiences. The unfortunate thing is that people of color in the higher echelons of the Republican Party are such a rarity, that the party tends to make them into a kind of totem, a talisman against charges of "racism", rather than paying more than lip service to their real accomplishments. This leads to absurdities such as "We're not racist! Look! We have Colin Powell!" or more recently "Look! We're not anti-woman! Look at Sarah Palin!" (Forgive me for mentioning Palin and Powell in the same breath!) The point is, the person is in danger of being used as an exemplar or poster child, rather than as an individual. Colin Powell got where he was by personal committment, and I can not to my recollection think of any time he brought up the question of race. It's an insult to him to suggest that this is the reason he supports Obama (I wonder where he was when Allen Keyes was running?). I suspect that Powell saw how things were done in the Bush White House, and fears a repeat of the same, especially when McCain nurses dreams of marching into Tehran. Powell understands better than most how thin the U.S. military is stretched, and what a disaster an invasion of Iran would be. And as a true patriot, he fears the divisive rhetoric coming from the party, which has reached new heights (or depths).

I'm afraid I'll have to cut this rambling and unedited post off midpoint, as I have to get my son ready for preschool. Anyone can feel free to take it from here...

However I guess if I was to really answer your question CutestLilBookworm and be totally honest with everyone here I would probably have to admit it would be racial affiliation because the white Democrat decided to endorse McCain instead of Obama. There I hope that answers your question.

beatles1964

CutestLilBookworm maybe you and everyone else were expecting me to answer your question saying I thought the white Democrat who decided to endorse McCain was a personal choice and not racial affiliation then everyone would've said Beatles1964 really is a racist. Of course. I immediately saw it for the trap it actually was and smart enough not to walk right straight into an obvious trap like that question was set up to be. I guess I disappointed a lot of people saying it was racial affiliation and not a personal choice. So I guess Beatles1964 is a lot smarter than some people here give me credit for being. Of course a situation like that is actually racial affiliation and really not a personal choice even though they may try to convince themselves and other people around them that it really was a personal choice and had nothing to do with racial affiliation. I probably spoiled everyone's fun around here by not answering the way some people thought I may have answered especially if they thought I might've said it was the white Democrat's personal choice. I'm not dumb no matter how some people around here think I am.

beatles1964

Thanks Beatles. I do appreciate your honesty in answering the question, but it was not meant to trap you, make you look dumb or racist. This is a discussion forum, not a verbal assault on you personally. Please, it is not even that serious. It was intended to be food for thought. To try and reverse the situation and see if you would judge it the same...would you hastily analyze a white man's decision in the same clairvoyant way you have done against a black man--both whom you only know of based on media exposure, not personal experience or even knowledge of the internal information used to formulate their decision.

How we are socialized, our personal experiences drive our beliefs. I have an aunt who would agree with you. Race is the primary factor. She has encountered many negative experiences with whites, so she would automatically take that stance and staunchly refuse to accept any different. I, on the other hand would acknowledge that race may be a factor...but also take into the account perhaps this person simply does not agree with Obama. Not because of his race, but for the same reasons that had me considering Hillary over him not too long ago. I could go on, but why beat a dead horse. Hopefully, you get the point I was trying to make and take it for what it is--just an addition to the discussion. Looking forward to butting heads with you again (smile).

The Republican party of Joe the plumber, Tito the builder, and Joe Sixpack, is a racist party but only insofar as race is used as a tribal marker. The primary issue for those folks is not race per se, but tribalism. Notice how Joe Sixpack expends as much disdain verging on hatred for "liberals" every bit as much as race.

Democrats tend to be multi-cultural, we're all in this together, inclusive of all who share inclusive values, while Republicans divvy the nation into groups who are more or less like me (or so they think). Of course the latter is a divide and conquer strategy created by people who are nothing like them at all, and indeed who look down their noses at them for being so easily manipulated.

The Republican party tells their members that this group will ruin one thing about America and this other group will ruin another thing and so on, all the while sucking the blood out of their base, turning group after group on one another to confuse and frighten them.

The Republican Party is one of the most cynical organizations on the face of the earth.

John McCain has embraced this cynicism with his entire being.

CutestLilBookworm, I'm Sorry if I took your question the wrong way however it seemed the way it was worded the question was meant to be a trap and people were expecting me to walk right into it without even thinking about it in the first place. At least that's the way I thought your question was intended to be at the time before you just explained it wasn't a trap after all. No harm, no foul CutestLilBookworm.

beatles1964

Actually, I think it was meant to make you rethink your position on why Powell made his endorsement of Obama. Since you already backtracked on that point, rehashing Cutests question is kinda pointless.

I was only explaining why I thought the question was meant to be a trap for me, that's all. That was my original feeling on the question that if I answered it wrong everyone here was going to call me a racist. I thought I was trying to be tricked into answering it other than the way I did. I just felt like people were expecting me to give the wrong answer. Since some people here don't think I'm too smart at least that's the feelings I got from some of the responses to things I posted have here in Pro and Con. And that is also part of the reason I felt it was a question trying to trap me. OK, CutestLilBookworm explained it wasn't meant to be some kind of a trap so let's just move on to something else.

beatles1964

You aren't a racist just because you belong to a different tribe, unless one of the points of identity with your tribe is race based, then you will be a racist.

Is race one of the markers that distinguishes your tribe?

So how should I go about answering your question geneg?Since no one here knows if I am a registered Democrat, Republican or Independent. Then what you are saying is that I would be racist because I would be guilty by association even if I really wasn't a racist myself. As I keep saying here in Pro and Con that I am not a racist. By tribe I take it you mean Republican rather than Democrat, right?

beatles1964

I need to be more careful about just saying the first thing that ever pops into my mind at the time because that always gets me into a lot of trouble here. In the past whenever I would make entries into my Diary or Journal I will usally just say what is on my mind at the moment I am feeling it knowing that no one will see it unless I allow them to see what I have written in my Diaries or Journals. Very rarely do I ever go back and edit some entry I had just written in the Diary or Journal. So I am just used to saying what I am feeling or thinking at that particular moment. Sometimes it is something I would never, ever think of saying to anyone I know because it would be very embarrassing to me for someone to read some of my inner most personal and intimate thoughts. Sometimes I just like to rant and rave about the kind of day I had at work in the Library or something someone had said to me that got me angry and upset to put me in a foul mood for awhile.

beatles1964

Don't worry, you can always issue a retraction or apology. Sarah Palin does, so can you.

Well, I lost this and will try to recreate it.

Beatles, when I talk about tribes, I'm referring to how we define the group(s) we associate with.

Party affiliation is one of the criteria we use, but not the only one. Democrats tend to have a set of correspondences with other Democrats, while Republicans share a set of correspondences. Each Democrat or Republican has tribal markers that may or may not correspond to the markers of others in the group Democrat or Republican. And, in fact, Democrat and Republican are not the most cogent of tribal labels.

Conservatives tend to have closed sets of tribal markers, while more liberal people tend to have more open sets of tribal markers.

The fewer tribal markers one carries, the more open one is to manipulation by fear of the "other". This is the situation with people who think of themselves as white, straight, male, entitled to all that those qualities confer on them. They are afraid of that which they have no experience with. Conservatives tend to narrow their tribes, especially as they are forced from their comfort zones. They tend to withdraw into smaller and smaller tribes as things get weirder and weirder. They long for the old days when everyone looked just like them, thought just like them, and believed just like them. Of course those "Old Day" never existed, but that's not the issue. The only problem with this is as "The Chad Mitchell Trio" put it in their classic about the John Birch Society, "There's no one left but we and thee and we're not so sure about thee".

This closed tribalism stems from a mostly mild paranoia. Listen to FoxNews or Rush and listen to what they say. Listen to John McCain and hear what he says. They spend far more time denigrating the "other" than talking about themselves, or setting up false "us" and "them" dichotomies (Western Pennsylvania is where REAL Americans live, as if people living elsewhere are NOT real Americans). You find that you are a member of this tribe because you share in their paranoia, not because they have rational or truthful reasons for you to associate yourself with them, but because you are afraid of the same things they tell you you should be afraid of. They associate specific people with the things you should be afraid of. Be afraid of liberals, they want to take away what's yours and give it to "those people". Barack Obama is the most liberal record in Congress. Barack Obama is a liberal. He wants to take away what's yours and give it to "those people". They don't have to tell you to be afraid of Barack Obama, they'll let you add the two and two they laid out for you, yourself. Lightbulb goes off and you're afraid of Barack Obama. Why? Because he's going to take what's yours and give it to "those people".

It stems from the way multiculturalism treats cultures as value neutral, which of course they aren't, but living on the edge of paranoia they can't see this. "We" are generally free, white, and 21, and entitled to all that means. People who are not "us" are not expanding the culture, but attacking the culture, because they want to horn in on what it means to be free, white, and 21. It is this exclusivity that makes many of us reject this tribe.

In any case conservatives tend toward being culturally closed, while liberals tend to be more culturally accepting and open.

Which tribe do you belong to? Sit down and truthfully identify the traits that make up your worldview. Once you've done this check out who the others are that share your traits. that's you tribe.

>77 geneg: Geneg, this should brighten your day.

Dan Gerstein at Forbes: R.I.P. Reagan Revolution.

As a student of politics...I have been particularly fascinated by how the Republicans plan to begin rehabilitating the brand that President Bush and his allies have shredded over the last eight years, reconnect with their sunny Reagan roots and prepare themselves to compete again for the determinative center of the electorate.

Judging from the disturbing developments of the last two months, the verdict seems clear. Forget the self-reckoning and self-repairing--the Republicans seem intent on self-immolation. Indeed, instead of trying to work itself out of the deep electoral hole that Bush and company created, the GOP has apparently opted to apply the drill-baby-drill mantra to its own political fortunes--and, improbably, find ways to narrow the party's appeal to the swing voters they have done so much to alienate during the Bush era.

I'm not talking about what the hateful yahoos who are attending rallies for the Republican ticket are yelling (albeit after being egged on by a flurry of indefensible attacks by the McCain campaign and its surrogates). I'm talking about what Republican leaders and elected officials are actually saying and doing. All of which, taken together, suggests that the GOP of the moment is now far closer to being the party of Joe McCarthy than John McCain, and explains why Colin Powell and many other responsible Republicans are sending increasingly urgent distress signals over the sinking McCain ship.

We have seen the party that gave us Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan nominate a woman for vice president who could not answer an interviewer's relatively gentle question about what news sources she regularly reads. This is not a matter of class or gender, but rather seriousness and credibility, which Sarah Palin lost with many voters who were willing to give her a fair shake the minute she claimed that seeing Russia from her state was a foreign policy credential.

We have seen Palin go on to falsely accuse her Democratic opponent of "palling around with terrorists." The most outrageous thing about this assertion is not the gross exaggeration of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, but the shameful, purposeful use of the plural: "terrorists." These are the kinds of loony accusations we are used to hearing from members of the ultraconservative John Birch Society, not running mates of John McCain....

...Just last Friday, we saw a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann, explicitly attack Obama and his wife as "anti-American" and call on the media to investigate members of Congress to " find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Then Palin repeated this patriotism-questioning line at a rally in North Carolina, saying she was glad to be in a part of the country that was "pro-America." One has to wonder what made these women think that this was acceptable in the United States of 2008?

And most recently, as if the overt hints of McCarthyism were not enough, McCain and his allies are now openly calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the top tax brackets back to their Clinton-era levels (when the country enjoyed the greatest peacetime expansion in our history) and provide a cut in the payroll tax to middle class workers.

These digs about a Democrat who has raised more money from Wall Street than his Republican opponent and been endorsed by notable red diaper babies like Warren Buffett, former Federal Reserve Chairman and Reagan appointee Paul Volcker, Bank of America CEO Hugh McColl and Google CEO Erik Schmidt? These attacks from a Republican Party whose president just called for nationalizing much of our banking system and whose nominee endorsed that same extreme government intervention in the marketplace?

Some will want to write off all these bizarre deep-end diatribes--to borrow a favorite Cheney-ism--as the last desperate throes of a dying campaign. Something is near death all right, but it's not merely the McCain insurgency. It's the Reagan Revolution....

...How bad has the backlash gotten? According to the New York Times/CBS News poll that came out on Tuesday, while Obama now has the highest favorability of any non-incumbent candidate since Reagan in 1980, Palin's negative rating is the highest for a vice-presidential candidate in the history of that poll. What's worse, McCain's disapproval ratings have risen 10 points since September....

...Will they reassess their relationships with narrow-minded interest groups and rebuild their intellectual capital in these out years, as the Democrats did after 1984 with the creation of the centrist, free-thinking Democratic Leadership Council that midwifed Bill Clinton's middle class agenda? Or will they follow Sarah Palin's lead and limit their pitch to the ever-smaller slices of "pro-America" America that embrace their anachronistic politics?...

I get more and more disgusted at the Republican party. they attract people like Bachmann because they believe this kind of crap, and then cut them loose when they say it in public. MSNBC is reporting the RNC is no longer going to help finance her re-election campaign saying they don't approve of her message. What bullshit! Of course they approve of the message, they're the ones who told her it was the "right" message. It's the same message McCain is spewing. "Western Pennsylania is the home of REAL Americans", "They have REAL Americans in Florida". I see absolutely no difference between this and what Bachmann said. What a bunch of despicable people. They hang their own out to dry.

Well, I've been telling people for near thirty year where Reaganomics was going to end up. No one listened. Oh, well. what can I say?

OK, off the top of my head here are a list of things I am either for or against. Maybe later on we can add to the list but for now let's see what tribe I belong to:

1). Registered Republican
2). Anti-Abortion unless it is to save the mother's life, a case of rape or incest
3). Against Death Penalty in general principles, however I do believe if someone kills a Police Officer they ought to get the Death Penalty
4). Against Liberal Radicals
5). Against Higher Taxes
6). For better Education for students
7). For Higher Wages for Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, the Military, etc.
8). For Libraries, Librarians and their Staffs (of course)
9) Against the Gov't being able to come in and take over someone's home because they want it to build Apartments, Parking Lot, Mall, etc.
10) Against unnecessary Gov't Spending when the money could be spent on better things elsewhere
11). I consider myself to be a Feminist
12). I am For Solar, Wind, and other kinds of Alternative Powers too.

OK let's find what tribe I belong in people. And I'll try not to be too upset if I don't like what I find out about myself. Is this enough of a list for now?

beatles1964

Hey, it will be kind of interesting to find out what kind of a Supreme Court Justice I would've made if I had been chosen to be on the Supreme Court. Of course, that will never happen I was just kind of curious as to what if any, of the Supreme Court Justices share some of the same ideals that I have listed above. That's what I mean from the above statements. Just curious, that's all. Since this is all totally hypothetical. Or as we sometimes say in my family, A fig newton of my imagination.
lol!!! Well, I guess I'm ready now to find out what tribe I belong in.

beatles1964

4). Against Liberal Radicals
Define and explain further. Would you also be against "Conservative Radicals"?

5). Against Higher Taxes
For you? For anyone?

6). For better Education for students
I doubt you'll find anyone on either side who argues against this. The kicker: how do you think we should go about accomplishing this?

7). For Higher Wages for Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, the Military, etc.
But not higher taxes, right?

10) Against unnecessary Gov't Spending when the money could be spent on better things elsewhere
Ah. Definitely not a Republican, then. (Ok, they do at least say they believe that.)

11). I consider myself to be a Feminist
And how, if at all, does that inform your views on policy?

I'm going to have think these things over and get back in touch with everyone here later on.

beatles1964

OK, Medillia12 here goes:
4). Against Liberal Radicals
I am not against Conservative Radicals. You are will probable hate me for saying this, however I always find myself agreeing with Sean Hannity and disagreeing with Allan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes o

OK, Medillia12 here goes:
4). Against Liberal Radicals
I am not against Conservative Radicals. You are will probable hate me for saying this, however I always find myself agreeing with Sean Hannity and disagreeing with Allan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes on

OK, Medillia12 here goes:
4). Against Liberal Radicals
I am not against Conservative Radicals. You are will probable hate me for saying this, however I always find myself agreeing with Sean Hannity and disagreeing with Allan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes on Fox

You didn't define "liberal radical" or "conservative radical," so your answer is meaningless. How is Sean Hannity a conservative radical? How is Colmes a liberal radical?

Medellia, you have certainly bit off a chunk for yourself. Still, do you think this could be moved to a new thread called, say, "Inside the Mind of Beatles1964"? You'd probably get a lot of traffic.

I kind of thought beatles would do this analysis with himself and make his decision, then get back to us.

OK, Medillia12 here goes:
4). Against Liberal Radicals
I am not against Conservative Radicals. You will all probably hate me for saying this, however I always find myself agreeing with Sean Hannity and disagreeing with Allan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes on Fox

5). Against Higher Taxes for everyone not just myself

6). For better Eduation for students

I really can't answer this one because the only way to accomplish this is with Higher Taxes however this will contradict what I stated in number 5.

7). For Higher Wages for Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, the Military, etc.

Of course this will also cause a problem here and contradict myself again in number 5 because I said I am not for Higher Taxes. I know Higher Taxes is a real necessary Evil because it helps to pay for Higher Wages, Better Education, Better Roads, Maintain Bridges, etc.

10) Against unnecessary Gov't spending when the money could be spent on better things

I guess one of the things I am talking about would be all the Pork that is earmarked and added on to Bills that are Passed and having nothing to do with what was written in the Bill itself except it will help the Senator's Home State financially in some way.

11) I consider myself to be a Feminist

I guess it would apply to things that are called Women's issues like better Health Care, Day Care, Abortion, etc.

I hope these will answer your questions satisfactorily.

beatles1964

Well, that's an amazing mass of contradictions and non-answers. I feel compelled to quote Peggy Noonan here: "She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things."

Makifat, don't worry, I'm done.

I said I knew I was going to contradict myself based on what I had already said before.
Hey, I gave it my best shot. You know what I kind of sound like Yogi Berra. But you can call them Beatles1964isms.

beatles1964

97
It's the "buddy system" of self analysis.

99
What, you have something better to do on a fine day like this?

I don't know how my answers to Medelia12 got repeated so many times. I guess Colmes is a Liberal Radical because he is so Pro-Obama and I have never found myself to agree with him even once on any subject.

As for Sean Hannity I like him better than Colmes and always seem to agree with him on his views. It seems Hannity has more of a Right Wing way of thinking where as Colmes is very Left-Wing like Obama and the rest of the News Media that loves Obama so much.

beatles1964

It's almost like an Obama Lovefest where everyone comes together to celebrate "The Chosen One" as he calls himself. Maybe Obama thinks he is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

beatles1964

One thing you must keep in mind, beatles, with nothing but conservative policies and essentially conservative Presidents and Congresses since 1976, liberals in America are mostly to the right of Eisenhower. So while Republicans want to scare everyone away form "the Liberals", it's only because the Republicans verge on the edge of fascism.

After reading The Audacity of Hope, I don't really think Obama is all that liberal. I would say he is just pragmatic.

Well, I have resisted reading this thread for several days and today attempted to slog through it all. I gave up at message 85. I know...I'm a slacker, unwilling to exercise self discipline and do what it takes to respond intelligently to the above discussion. However, I think the thread should have been renamed to something like "ping pong with beatles 64". Really. I read very little about what Gen. Powell said, about whether he supported his choice with interesting or new reasoning, or about whether this endorsement will change any one's mind. Oh well. I'll move along now.

maggie, I find it goes better if you just skip beatles' posts. The responses to them tell you everything you need to know, and the other posters mostly make sense.

citygirl that isn't a very nice thing to say about me. You know if it was'nt for Beatles1964
most of the LT Groups around here wouldn't be no fun. It would be Dullsville around here in LT. Sometimes I'll try to add some humor to my postings. And who would people pick on if it wasn't for Beatles1964? I admit to saying some very outrageous, far out things but just look at the responses to those way out there postings of mine. Of course sometimes things get a little out of control and the debates and postings can get very intense too. So if there is an overwhelming outcry of people who want Beatles1964 to leave Pro and Con So Be It!!! I'll leave and never have to bother anyone here ever again. But it certainly won't be as much fun without me here. As I have explained sometimes I just write whatever pops into my head at that particular moment without once bothering to stop and think it through whether or not I shoul'dve said what I did at the time.

Beatles1964

citygirl that isn't a very nice thing to say about me. You know if it was'nt for Beatles1964
most of the LT Groups around here wouldn't be no fun. It would be Dullsville around here in LT. Sometimes I'll try to add some humor to my postings. And who would people pick on if it wasn't for Beatles1964? I admit to saying some very outrageous, far out things but just look at the responses to those way out there postings of mine. Of course sometimes things get a little out of control and the debates and postings can get very intense too. So if there is an overwhelming outcry of people who want Beatles1964 to leave Pro and Con So Be It!!! I'll leave and never have to bother anyone here ever again. But it certainly won't be as much fun without me here. As I have explained sometimes I just write whatever pops into my head at that particular moment without once bothering to stop and think it through whether or not I shoul'dve said what I did at the time.

Beatles1964

I happen to love the talking about yourself in the third person, beatles. Madcow299 really enjoys that.

I just write whatever pops into my head at that particular moment without once bothering to stop and think it through whether or not I shoul'dve said what I did at the time.

...then you shouldn't be too surprised about the reactions you get...

readafew thinks he probably shouldn't bother...

Hey citygirl I know what you said is only in jest and since I don't see any angry Villagers carrying torches trying to run me out of town on the rail and tar and feather me I figure it's still safe around here for me. Maybe I should just stay quiet for awhile and try to hide under a rock somewhere.

HeyMadcow299 I am to Please and try to bring a smile or at least a chuckle to people in the LT Goups I belong to.

Beatles1964

Touche', readafew. You are absolutely right about what you said. However, since things do get to be a bit of out control sometimes I tend to take them too personally especially in the past where I have been called dumb or gullible in some other LT Groups.

Beatles1964

As wonderful as it is to hear all about you, beatles, could you either stick to the topic -even in a broad sense - or go cheer up one of the many other groups to which you belong.

ROFL!! While sneaking onto LT at work, I see all these new posts to this topic and it's not about Colin. No, it's Ms Beatles, back for more. LOL. Well, you certainly helped break the monotony of my day. (smile)

Edited to delete double message

Well maybe I'll go find a nice rock to hide under for awhile. Maybe the angry mob with their
torches are out to get me this time.

Beatles1964

Back to the actual Colin Powell for a moment -- is Powell permanently retired from public/political life? Is there any chance that he might be brought back into the next presidential administration in some capacity (either Obama's or McCain's)?

Okay, I'll bite. My remarks were not made in jest, although I'm beginning to think the beatles identity was so created. If so, hats off, and I tittle in your general direction. Also, the remarks were not made in anger. Getting angry because people hold different opinions is not really my thing; I am scratching my head though. I think your posts tend to distract from the real issues, but, whatever.

Potentially in an Obama administration: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93U7L401

A wise choice, Powell seems like a good commander a level-headed leader.

> 120 Interesting, thanks for the link. Obama (or McCain) could do worse than having Powell as an advisor.

beatles64 you say "most of the LT Groups around here wouldn't be no fun" which is news to me because I spend most of my enjoyable time reading threads you are not a part of....humm, interesting, don't you think.

Sorry, fellow Pros and Cons, I could not help myself. Please continue on the topic of the thread. Powell will certainly be able to provide very good advice. Obama will be wise to consult intelligent and caring people of all political persuasions.

#123: Well, the double negative in "most of the LT Groups around here wouldn't be no fun" gives it instead the meaning of "most of the LT Groups around here would be fun." So perhaps it wasn't a grammatical error--perhaps Beatles agrees with you.

Powell stood by Bush, even when it was clear a disaster was in the making, let himself be outmaneuvered by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Etc, yada yada. I suppose he might have learned from this and would give Obama good advice. I don't think he should have a cabinet position and it didn't sound like he was seeking one. If offered one, I'm also sure he'd take it (from a sense of duty).

I don't mind that people don't like liberals but what I do mind is when those people have no idea what the term "liberal" means. By definition, the USA is liberal! It's economic system -- capitalism -- is economic liberalism. Our institutions are liberal: the rule of law, Constitution, bill of rights, legislative and executive branches. I have no idea what a "radical liberal" could be other than a person who wants more of the rule of law, constitutional rights, etc. In the American context, the opposite of liberal is not conservative; it's feudalism (i.e., an aristocratic order) or monarchism (i.e., George III). One can debate whether the USA is fully or truly liberal, but that's another topic.

The word "liberal" took on pejorative meaning from the late 1960s onward, thanks to certain influential Republican politicians (most significantly, Reagan) and conservative intellectuals. It came to be characterized as a person who likes "big government, welfare, affirmative action, a weak military, etc." As a result, the discourse of American politics has been cheapened, meanings twisted, in short, a sort of meta-discourse of fantastic labels has detached itself from empirical reality. Oddly (in my view), the word "conservative" was also debased through, in a knee-jerk reaction to 'liberalism,' an embrace of positions that are hostile to the rule of law, constitutional rights, etc., exemplified the explicit use of religion as a litmus test for holding higher office (conservative and mainline protestants are ok, catholics not really, jews and muslims, don't bother applying, atheists, well you're bound for hell anyway!).

It's fun to engage in manichean politics, and I certainly do it myself, but it helps to be honest about it. McCain is not a fascist and Obama is not a socialist. Anyone who believes they are these things is, IMHO, hallucinating or fantasizing in a highly creative way. Both represent different variants of liberalism, which I'd characterize as conservative and progressive respectively. But here it's worth noting that Obama's progressivism is more conservative than that of Hillary Clinton and also John Edwards (for example).

If you want to see radicalism, visit Venezuela. You won't find it in the Obama campaign.

Nicely put, theoria, and thank you. I have been frustrated for the past 30+ years with the sloppy use of words such as "democrat", "republican", "liberal", "conservative", "radical", "socialist", "communist", "progressive", and so on. Not that we all have to be tied to classical definitions and that words can not change over time but really I think the American political scene has been terribly poisoned by the imprecise use of words used as mud slingers.

It also makes international communication much harder. Discussing with a Brit, I can be more or less sure that we mean the same things when we use certain political (science) vocabulary.
With Americans I am constantly translating their stuff in my head, and then re-read my stuff to see if it could be mis-read for something it isn't (and depending on the environment, trigger a fierce attack).

You guys have put you finger on the issue: Americans don't believe in words, they believe in perception, which, as I've explained elsewhere, leads to totalitarianism.

OK citygirl I originally took your remarks to be in jest so I'm just going to leave it that way instead of getting mad after the fact. #123maggie1944 I just want to say that for the most part I feel LT is a great place where people come together to meet with everyone else, laugh, talk, argue, discuss politics, what books they are reading at the moment, books on their tbr pile,
sports, whatever they want to talk about and discuss. I'm Sorry you feel that way about me. Then maybe what I should do then is to join every LT Group here then there won't be ANY groups I wouildn't be a member of. How does that sound to you? Seriously, though I realize we all have our political differences and would just like to friends with you, with anyone and everyone who would like to be a friend to Beatles1964. #124Medellia12 I'm Sorry for stating a double negative but like I have said I tend to post the first things that pop into my mind without stopping to consdier whether or not I should post what I have just written. I can assure everyone here it certainly was a grammatical error on my part.

Anyway I would just like to say that when I said Pro and Con would be Dullsville around here if I wasn't here for everyone to criticize whenever I said something people didn't agree with. I was trying to show some humor at the time. There is another way to help pay for Higher wages and better Education for Students. If Maryland decdies to let the Slots in that would raise an enormous amount of money to help out with those kind of things.

Beatles1964

> 126 I think it's a confusion or frustration that we all experience, at least to an extent. For my part, I often have no idea what any of those terms mean, except that all of them can be, and are, used as pejoratives to condemn The Other Guy.

Well right all I'm now I'm going to say is that if Obama does wind up losing to McCain the $2,000,000.00 he is spending will wind up being wasted and instead of "The Chosen One" celebrating a victory it will seem more like a wake for this arrogant, over-confindent attitude of Obama's. I'm surprised he isn't trying to rush President Bush out of the White House by now demanding he hand over the keys right this second and kick them out onto Pennsylvania Avenue.

Beatles1964

I'm surprised "The Chosen One" hasn't tried to walk on water yet, heal the lame and sick or any other of Obama's powers. Or that Obama hasn't decided to come up with a newer, better, more modern and up-to-date version of The Ten Commandments.

Maybe even calling them "The Chosen One's" 10 Commnandments to live your life by. Why hasn't "The Chosen One" written his tell all Autobiography, My Life As The Chosen One or The Chosen One And You or 1001 Things The Chosen One Wants You To Do Before You Die, The Chosen One Lifestyle, How To Be Just Like The Chosen One, How I Became The Chosen One and have all of these books and many others in The Chosen One Series written by The Chosen One Himself. Maybe He could even open up The Chosen One chain of Restaurants.

Beatles1964

The Chosen One Tells You How To Avoid Going To Hell, Exercise The Chosen One Way,
Sweating With The Chosen One,
The Chosen One Dancing With The Stars. Oh Yeah, in Hollywod they might as well just take down the huge HOLLYWOOD sign and put up THE CHOSEN ONE in it's place.

Beatles1964

This fantasy Obama in your head sounds much more interesting than the real one. Could you interview him for us?

The Chosen One!



Oh. I guess that's wrong Chosen One. Heh. Sorry.

Fantasy Obama? I don't think it's a Fantasy the way he is treated by the Media, his loving adoring fans, OH, The Chosen One shook my hand, I'll never wash that hand again in my life. Isn't The Chosen One just great? After all Obama is the one that named himself The Chosen One. I didn't do it but he certainly goes around acting and thinking he is the Second Coming of Jesus. All this attention and fuss over Obama makes me so sick and tired of having to hear Obama this, Obama that, Obama says....

Beatles1964

Beatles, you are a troll at this point. Your last few posts make it abundantly clear as to what your attitude towards Obama is. Since you don't really have any clear understanding about his policies, or what the attraction may be for some voters, I can only assume that the vitriol comes from the same place from which you started this thread, a visceral and repugnant attitude born of nothing more than the man's appearance (hint, hint).

One minute you're apologizing, the next you're whining in self-pity, then you troll for abuse with idiotic posts. Either get back on your meds, or find another forum. I for one am sick of you.

Somebody said a few months ago of Beatles that s/he was "acting like a child at the adult table." I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are unable to keep up with the level of discourse in these threads, don't post.

I am finished here.

OK,Point well taken makifat. I am Truly Sorry for those recent posts of my with all of "The Chosen One" comments but in all fairness I wouldn't have said those things if Obama himself didn't say that he was The Chosen One. Maybe I am the only one here to think of Obama calling himself The Chosen One as being sacrireligious. I certainly didn't mean to offend you makifat or anyone else but I am so sick and tired of how the Media treats him and the way both Hillary and McCain have been treated with all of this Media Bias in favor of Obama. I am probably the only one here who will totally enjoy Obama having to concede defeat to McCain if he loses on November 4th. I Promise to be better in the future and keep any of The Chosen One remarks to myself.Well it seems all I ever do anymore is to Apologize for one thing or another. Anyway I Promise not to make any more snide, crude, Chosen One, anti-Obama statements again. It just got totally out of hand. I couldn't stop myslef once I got on a roll with The Chosen One. They just kept pouring out of me as I was again saying the first thing that pops into my mind. I'll be good. I Promise everyone here in Pro and Con and the rest of LT too. I'll be so good you won't even know I'm here. In the future I will make sure I think twice about saying things as soon as they pop into my mind. Again everyone I am Really Truly, Deeply Sorry for all those nasty things I just said.

Beatles1964

The "Chosen One" crap came from a McCain commercial.

Get a clue.

Makifat thinks he is So Great. He thinks he is the King of the Forum and that he can tell Everyone what to do and what to say. The Forum King tells us to have Informed Opinions and to not judge by Appearances (but his profile picture is Scary and From the Devil) and to contribute constructively and Stay on Topic. All this attention and fuss over Makifat makes me so sick and tired of having to hear Makifat this, Makifat that, Makifat says....

Satan is on my side. Deal with it. ;)

I just wanted to take this opportunity and tell everyone that Beatles1964 is now turning over a new leaf and from now on you will see the new and improved Beatles1964 the other one is gone for good. I have already Promised Artic-Stranger I will walk the straight and narrow path from this moment on and I will not post anymore hateful anti-Obama or The Chosen One or anything else like that again, EVER. And if Obama does beat McCain on November 4th you will see some real nice posts from Beatles1964 on November 5th congratulating him on his historic victory and becoming the first African-American President in U.S. History. All I am asking here is to be given another chance. You will all be so surprised to see the new version of Beatles1964. I only want to be friends and not enemies. It is no fun to have people hate my guts ansd saying they don't want to read another post from Beatles1964.

I will be on my best behavior from now on. We all mistakes and should be given another chance to prove we have changed. I have just gotten my wake up call from Artic-Stranger and I don't want to screw this chance up. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone here in Pro and Con and the rest of LT too for that matter to realize the old Beatles1964 is no more. I am Truly, Deeply Sorry for all the mean-spirited things I said about Obama. Finally I would like to conclude by saying that Change may be coming but Beatles1964 doesn't accept any kind of change too well in the beginning at first. I know that I have had to go through an awful lot of changes here in the Library over the last 30 years and some of them I was totally dead set against af first but over time I grew to accept them and even like them so it is possible for a leopard to change their spots.

From the brand new and muchly improved Beatles1964.

Well, proof is in the pudding as they say...

Well, thanks, Beatles. Now I have to delete my previous post because now I look like a jerk.

Aw, that was briefly quite amusing.

Now I'm just upset, because Arctic never writes to me.

#149: Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease... I'd start by calling Arctic a mean ol' snothead. Escalate from there as necessary.

I called him smarmy once, but I think he's gotten used to that one.

Earlier I told Artic-Stranger and everyone here in Pro and Con you all would see the New & Improved version of Beatles1964 and that a leopard could change it's spots. Well, I am here this morning to congratulate Obama and everyone here on his very historic win.And to prove to everyone here that I actually meant what I said about changing my ways. I kept hoping for an upset but unfortunately that was not to be the case. I know everyone here is happy except for Beatles1964. I know a lot of people hate my guts and are going to rub my nose in it. I feel so damn depressed and low right now. I will be finding better things to day on 1-20-09 than watching Obama being Inaugurated. I plan on listening to my music and trying to get some books read for my 2009 50 Book Challenge and also the 999 Challenge too. I also will not bother to watch any of Obama's State of the Union Addresses either. These next four years can not pass fast enough for me. The Left-Wing Media has won and put Obama in the White House which is what they wanted to begin with. Change we can believe in, Yea Right!!!! Higher taxes and a Socialist view of spreading the wealth some change we can believe in. Remember this everyone you all won't have any Republicans to kick around in 2012 and blame everything on them since the Democrats now control everything. So if the Country is really screwed up at the time it will be the Democrat's fault and no one else's. The way I am feeling right now I am trying to decide whether or not to leave this group since a lot of people do hate my guts anyway. And I seriously doubt if Beatles1964 would even be missed from Pro and Con.

Obama is YOUR President not mine I didn't vote for him and I surely didn't want him but now we are stuck with him for the next four years whether I like it or not. I still think Hillary would've been much better than Obama but we may never know that unless Hillary runs again in 2012 and is elected at that time. I guess everyone here knows that Biden is going to be the real true power behind the throne and the President except in name. Because of Obama's lack of experience, Biden will have to walk him through everything and since Obama has never been tested before in his short Political career it will be interesting to find out if everyone really made the correct choice, which of course I seriously doubt. At least if we had elected McCain we know he has been tested in the past and knew how he would react to a situation. America's Enemies Overseas are probably dancing and singing in the streets and shooting their guns off in the air like I said earlier.

Beatles1964

I hope that everyone will be able to vote Obama out of office in four years if the Country isn't too much better off than we are today and are sick and tired of the Democrats controlling the Country and everyone is crying out for change and a new leader and will vote in a Republican whoever that might be. Personally, I hope Obama will only be a one-term President like Jimmy Carter and President Bush's father but that is something we will have to wait and see.

Beatles1964

I'm really sorry you feel this way, beatles1964, but I have to say that I felt EXACTLY the same way you do now when Bush got the Presidency in 2000 and 2004. I too felt that "The next four years cannot pass fast enough for me." And Bush "... is YOUR President not mine I didn't vote for him and I surely didn't want him but now we are stuck with him for the next four years whether I like it or not."

I didn't watch Bush's Inaugural Address or any of his State of the Union speeches. I couldn't stand to see him on TV or listen to him on the news. I've always felt he was a monkey in a human suit embarassing the US.

Regarding Bush, on Inauguration Day 2001 I hoped that he would do a good job because it is MY country. He owed it to me to do good things for MY country. He didn't.

I hope that you can get to the place where you hope that Obama does a good job because it's YOUR country too. And I hope that you can say after 4 or 8 years that he did good things for YOUR country because we all want the same things. We all want to be safe and have shelter, have clothes to protect us, have food and water to survive, have confidence that we're safe and secure. This translates into jobs and housing and reasonably priced necessities. The Democrats and Republicans have different theories about how to get there, but they both want to get there. Let's hope Obama can get us there.

We haven't had another attack on the Country for over seven years now so he must be doing something right. You have to at least give Bush that much credit whether you like him or not.

Beatles1964

karenmarie the way I am feeling right now I will only reach that happy place about Obama is when it is his last day in the White House whenever that may be, until that day comes I don't see myself finding a happy place about an Obama Presidency.

Beatles1964

There are times I get the feeling that not too many people here in Pro and Con give a damn about what Beatles1964 has to say or think and since I also get the feeling that a lot of people here hate my guts because of what I have said about Obama in the past or what I hear on Fox News that I don't have too many friends here who even like me. I just want to say I feel it is NOT a good idea to have one Political Party totally dominating the Country and having absolute complete control of the House, Senate and now unfortunately the White House too. In this case it means the Democrats can do whatever the feellike doing without having to fear anything from the Republicans. Maybe I should just leave this group and make every happy.Like I say, who really gives a damn about what Beatles1964 says or thinks? Maybe this Political group isn't my cup of tea and I should join something else where I feel I fit in better like another book group. And where I am liked a whole lot more too.

Beatles1964

I guess everyone else is this group is still out Partying and celebrating Barack Obama's historic Presidential Election. Unforunately, I'm not in the Partying mood right this moment. I was crazy enough to think that McCain actually had a chance to upset Obama and become the next President. Crazy Beatles1964, I should've known better.

Beatles1964

Beatles, I can't swear to it but I doubt that very many here 'Hate your guts'. Most of us are enlightened enough to allow people to have differing opinions without taking it personally. I certainly don't 'hate' you at all.

However to be honest I don't have a whole lot of respect for you either. The lack of respect does not come from wanting McCain in the white house by itself but from the 'arguments' you seem to think 'prove' your case. You like to quote the worst mud slinging propaganda from the right when talking about Obama and the Democrats and yet you were an ardent supporter of Clinton (also a Democrat). Then you switched to McCain.

One possibility by your posts suggests you just wanted to see a woman in the White house, not unreasonable, or you didn't want to see a black man in the white house, which for many people, is true though they would never have said that. Or and this is my personal bet, coming from reading your posts here and in other forums I think you just like cheering the underdog position and put your all into it.

What ever amount of time you spend 'thinking' about your issues and positions, your posts don't reflect that. Most of them come across as ignorant and childish and full of appeals to emotion. That does not float well in this forum and is the source of most of the disrespect you feel. Personally your posts come across to me as an ignorant and eager teenager, not a thoughtful adult. I am not saying this to insult you but you try to help you see your self through our eyes. I have noticed a slight and subtle change to your posts, moving in the direction of the discourse expected since you started posting here but you have a ways to go yet.

Right now I am feeling so low and miserable I will probably have to play some of my FIFA PS2 Video games and get all of this anger and frustration I am feeling out of my system by taking off the Penalties and limiting the substitutes to a limit of three players so I can have most of the other team's players limping all over the pitch. Whenever I play my FIFA games or any of my Tekken Video games and I get to kick someone's butt it makes me relax and feel better and right now this is exactly what I need.

Beatles1964

Oh, and treating these threads as a personal blog or diary doesn't help either.

I wan't aware I was doing this readafew. I'm just saying what I happen to be feeling at the moment. Fine if you really feel that way it makes my decision to leave this group that much easier. Good-Bye!!!

Beatles1964

Have fun storming the castle!

162
Excellent post.

Beatles, I have rarely seen such mopey whining.

Maybe instead of rotting your brain with video games, you could take that giant leap and go to that "Library School" you've been dreaming of since 1978. Do something with your life - turn off Fox News and start listening to intelligent people. Try to grow into some level of maturity. And keep your promises, starting with the one you made in 166.

As for me, it's a glorious day. Palin's on a plane back to Alaska, the slime campaign clearly didn't work, and America has backed away from the abyss and followed the angels of our better nature. Not even your infantile whining can harsh my buzz.

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

A little courage doesn't hurt once in a while. And some intelligence. And creativity. But love is important, no doubt.

Oh oh, and maybe some chocolate pudding.

Please, sir, I want some more.- O. Twist

Thank you sir, may I have another - Omega's initiation

Excuse me sir are you Danny Glover? - A fan in a Hollywood restaurant

Truthfully even if you really dislike the winner--you at least hope he or even she (maybe someday) will do right by the country--maybe even make you reassess your own viewpoints. When Clinton won, when Bush won it didn't matter--I didn't vote for either but I sure didn't want the country to blow up so I could tell other people 'I told you so' four years later. Some of beatles opinions just seem ridiculous.

There are times I get the feeling that not too many people here in Pro and Con give a damn about what Beatles1964 has to say or think and since I also get the feeling that a lot of people here hate my guts because of what I have said about Obama in the past or what I hear on Fox News that I don't have too many friends here who even like me.

I'd guess that that's probably quite a bit of an overstatement, Beatles. Many of us here disagree with you (and quite strongly at that.) This in no way means that we hate you. It merely means that we don't hold the same views. To tell you the truth, until I came in and saw 13 posts from you today (some deleted) in this thread, I can't say that I had thought of you much at all.

I just want to say I feel it is NOT a good idea to have one Political Party totally dominating the Country and having absolute complete control of the House, Senate and now unfortunately the White House too.

I can see where this can be problematic. It is, however, the way that the election was decided. The current electoral situation was decided by the voters.

In this case it means the Democrats can do whatever the feellike doing without having to fear anything from the Republicans.

"Fear" is a rather interesting choice of word in that context. Would you care to explain a bit more?

Maybe I should just leave this group and make every happy.

Again, I think you're probably overestimating how "unhappy" your presence makes most of us.

Like I say, who really gives a damn about what Beatles1964 says or thinks? Maybe this Political group isn't my cup of tea and I should join something else where I feel I fit in better like another book group. And where I am liked a whole lot more too.

If fitting in and making friends are what you're aiming for, then that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself. If it makes you feel any better, I really don't like anyone that much. I'm completely misanthropic. I don't even like myself that much. Please don't take it personally.

I like you, jesse.

Awwww, shucks. In that case, I take back everything I was saying about you.

I hate the voters. They clearly suck.

Exhale, Cody. Release your hate. It's who you are.

Define "hate."

So to get back to Colin Powell. Here is a good interview about his reaction to the election of Obama. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/05/colin.powell.reaction.cnn

176
I'm completely misanthropic.

Me too! Misanthropes of the World, Unite!

And then leave me the hell alone.

Get away from me!

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Away-Me-Nellie-McKay/dp/B0001AP07M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&...

My question is: does the album title quote her, or the people she meets on the street? I'm betting it's the latter...

#178 See a response like that is exactly why. (It's nice to hang out in a place that has relatively thick skin on occasion.)

and so's your old man.