0
KrisFlyZ

Colin Powell endorses Obama

Recommended Posts

Quote


So, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks Obama IS qualified to be Commander in Chief.



Is he looking for a job? It's again very late to be making endorsements, with an apparent victory a done deal.

Not that this is a terrible crime - maybe he'd like to support a White House policy he actually believes in, and certainly he'd bring credibility to the cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Since over 1.2 million people have donated to Obama, he will have a lot of "special interests" to repay if that's how you view donations.

McCain, on the other hand, has relied on far fewer but bigger money donors, with less than 1/3 of his money coming from "small donors".



No my point is that "Obama The Great Reformer's" position in favor of public finance changed. In February of 2007, in the New York Times, he challenged the Republicans in the presidential race to promise they too would take public financing in the general election. In November of 2007 he told the Midwest Democracy Network "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

His flipflop is old news, but I'm sure it's too much to hope that he will pursue his socialist agenda with the same ardor.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Feb 07, he probably presumed he'd be at a disadvantage on fundraising. Discovering that money would rain down on his campaign like a Central American rain forest would change anyone's mind on the subject.



Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? Taking a principled stand on reform, until it applies to his campaign......
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In Feb 07, he probably presumed he'd be at a disadvantage on fundraising. Discovering that money would rain down on his campaign like a Central American rain forest would change anyone's mind on the subject.



Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? Taking a principled stand on reform, until it applies to his campaign......



The Republican faithful are in no position to talk about election ethics, but do feel that the Democrats should take the highroad, even though it would put them at a disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a huge step for the Dems.
Actual support from someone that is credible.

In the past, the Reps didn't actually win elections.
The Dems just handed it to them for years.

Dems - "our candidate is..."

Reps - "our candidate is Lassie and Timmy for VP"

It is the difference between the college instructors.
The business professor and the orange-haired "artists".
They do what they do... but who do you respect?

Another year of Sharpton, Jackson, and the Blue-Dressed Shrieker? Self-destruction.

Powell has been places and done things.
Military experience. Foreign policy. Education.
I respect him. His opinion has value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Republican faithful are in no position to talk about election ethics, but do feel that the Democrats should take the highroad, even though it would put them at a disadvantage.



I wasn't talking about election ethics, but, I'm guessing you just want to shift the target a bit. I'm no big McCain supporter, I just believe him to be the lesser of the two evils. He has a lot of problems, and I'll gladly share them with you. But for some reason, you guys defend Obama no matter what. Does it bother you at all that he took such a principled stand for public finance and then turned on a dime?
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can anyone say black?



I just got home from an unusually "interesting" weekend at the dropzone. I logged in to dz.com solely to open this thread for the express purpose of finding out how long it took someone to say that. I see that the answer to my question is 37 posts, and I can now log off pleasantly surprised. :|

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously not, if you truly think 95% of Americans have federal income tax liability. 95% of Americans DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX. It's about 41%. Deal with it. 95 > 41...and you know that well, else you couldn't do cool things like using the angular momentum operator to prove the S orbital is spherical...or comprehend frame dragging...

:)

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So does Farrakhan



Wow. Cavalierly dismissing a career officer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State by comparing him to a racist hate-monger like Farakkhan. So much for judging the man on his merits, right?

Once again, class: what's wrong with this year's campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So does Farrakhan - a few may be swayed by either endorsement, but I don't think there's many left to sway, to be honest.



Isn't Farrakhan's home just a few blocks away from Obama's?
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So does Farrakhan - a few may be swayed by either endorsement, but I don't think there's many left to sway, to be honest.



Isn't Farrakhan's home just a few blocks away from Obama's?



Holy shit!! Well, now, that gives this story a whole new complexion. I may have to re-think my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So does Farrakhan - a few may be swayed by either endorsement, but I don't think there's many left to sway, to be honest.



Isn't Farrakhan's home just a few blocks away from Obama's?



wow, i guess that answers my question in the other thread. armed with gross misinformation, fed to them by clearly biased news people (on both sides), americans head to the polls. yikes.
Oh Canada, merci pour la livraison!



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

So does Farrakhan - a few may be swayed by either endorsement, but I don't think there's many left to sway, to be honest.



Because the landslide is already happening. This endorsement, plus the $150 million flowing to Obama in September, more than half of it from NEW donors. As they say, "follow the money".



'Follow the money' like the $800k he gave ACORN, or 'follow the money' like the donations from 'Edrty Eddty' ($250) and 'Es Esh' ($250)?

Or maybe the donations from 'Good Will' ($17,375) or 'Doodad Pro' ($19,500) - well over the maximum allowable of $4600 between the primary and general election.

Or, perhaps the approximately $39 MILLION dollars that have come in from overseas sources?

Yeah, let's follow THAT money!!



The very fact that $39 M has been invested in Obama just to keep the Republican party out of the White House by overseas donors says alot about how little the rest of the world wants to work with a McCain Presidency. That alone is a good reason to vote Democrat. The US needs the good will of the rest of the world not to mention their buying power.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The very fact that $39 M has been invested in Obama just to keep the Republican party out of the White House by overseas donors says alot about how little the rest of the world wants to work with a McCain Presidency. That alone is a good reason to vote Democrat. The US needs the good will of the rest of the world not to mention their buying power.



The FACT of the matter is that overseas donations are ILLEGAL. McCain has a listing of all his donors available, Obama does not. McCain has returned questionable donations, Obama has not.

For the rest of the post - I give nary a DAMN what the rest of the world's opinon is - the rest of the world doesn't elect the President - we (the American people) do, and the President's first priority is to the USA and not some world-wide popularity contest.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the rest of the world doesn't elect the President - we (the American people) do, and the President's first priority is to the USA and not some world-wide popularity contest.



You're technically correct, but only to a point - that's the point to which there's no down side to our going it alone. Go beyond that point, and our national security and/or economy begin to incur detriment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The FACT of the matter is that overseas donations are ILLEGAL. McCain has a listing of all his donors available, Obama does not. McCain has returned questionable donations, Obama has not.



Actually, that's some fact & some fiction mixed in there. Sen Obama & Sen McCain have returned all questionable donations. In both campaigns, it has largely been outside individuals/groups who have discovered foreign donations, foreign solicitors, & foreign bundlers.

There is also evidence the Sen McCain has not been as transparent as suggested in revealing donors, e.g., "McCain campaign’s approach is in effect a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy that seeks to limit political damage rather than to turn over to authorities those who may be violating the law."

The bipartisan Center for Responsive Politics finds Sen Obama to be 92.4% full disclosure w/r/t donations and campaign financing, whereas Sen McCain has only been 86.8% full disclosure. Do you have other data supporting your claim and countering what the CFRP found?


Quote

I give nary a DAMN what the rest of the world's opinon is - the rest of the world doesn't elect the President - we (the American people) do, and the President's first priority is to the USA and not some world-wide popularity contest.



I care very much what the rest of the world thinks - driven largely by one long-term strategic goal: it makes executing US foreign policy goals -- whether they be economic liberalization, ending Communism, spreading democracy, reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, or protecting US interests -- easier, less costly (in dollars & lives), and more efficient. Or to put more simply, it's a lot more difficult for deployed US service members and nationals when 'they're' trying to kill us (literally and metaphorically).

--- -- ---

W/r/t the issue of public financing, actions, and integrity, there is also more to the 'story.' The Campaign for Clean Money, a bi-partisan watchdog group (e.g., their principal target before the election was Rep William Jefferson (D-LA)) notes "McCain Attacks Obama on Public Financing, But His Own Retreats Get No Attention":
“Sen. McCain is not a real reformer anymore, and the widening gap between his words and actions is disturbing. While clinging to past achievements on campaign finance reform, he’s run a campaign that goes counter to the reformer he once was. In addition, he hasn’t just walked, but sprinted away from his previous support for comprehensive public financing. In 2002, McCain called his state’s Clean Elections public financing law a national model. During this campaign he reversed himself and said he would oppose public financing for all federal elections. He has allowed flocks of Washington’s top corporate lobbyists to staff and fundraise for his campaign despite calling them ‘birds of prey’ on the stump. Even as he reminds voters of his own reform law, he is promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who will gut it.

Sen. Obama’s decision to forgo public financing in the general election was disappointing. But that decision does not obscure the fact that it is Barack Obama, not John McCain, who is currently sponsoring bills to fix the presidential public financing system and extend public financing to congressional elections.


While it seems likely that a candidate who "Tak[es] a principled stand on reform," would be preferable; is one who is transparent (i.e., honest) or one who is opaque (i.e., not fully disclosing) in his "flip-flopping" [your word] more problematic? Why? Turning down public financing is not illegal nor is changing one's mind w/r/t legislation one had previously indicated support.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


So, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks Obama IS qualified to be Commander in Chief.



And I'm sure others don't - you have a point, I take it?


Well, there's what we KNOW, and then there's what you are "sure" about.:D


Weren't YOU the one asserting how he LIED about WMDs and LIED about My Lai? I suppose all is forgiven now that he endorses The Chosen One ®?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0