|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 30, 2008 8:02:45 GMT -8
Robin-
I'd be very interested in a thread along those lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 30, 2008 8:26:29 GMT -8
nate,
pardon my brevity, i'm on my pocket pc.
my leaning only demonstrates my deficient understanding of the candidates' positions on everything.
mccain is my defacto vote at this for little else than i'm more familiar with him and I like his style of bucking party lines. i'm just more confident in his ability to lead the country at this point.
I have no compulsion toward either candidate yet, so I can be won over by a good solid case for either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 30, 2008 9:49:47 GMT -8
It's mostly a praise. I like that he can think and speak very coherently on his feet. But such skills aren't (obviously) the most important traits of a leader.
One thing I noticed was that Barack was very skilled at getting the moderator and audience to identify him as more polite and restrained than McCain. Though he did put up a modest fight to be heard and didn't let McCain walk over him, he was very quick (much more so than McCain) to defer to the moderator with a smile. He also got the audience on his side with his "knowing smiles" everytime McCain seemed to be getting too intense.
McCain seemed to be much less in touch with the audience.
I don't put a lot of stock in such abilities, but they are important in certain situations a President will find himself in (esp. negotiations) so in general, I think this is a positive ability.
What I mean (in an admittedly very cryptic comment) was that I tend to think McCain's more hardline stance in regard to certain foreign states is the more prudent stance* if one assumes that the self-interest of the U.S. is the top priority. The italicized part is under question to me as a Christian, but it is typically the priority of governments to protect their own interests first.
*though I came away more confused than before about Obama's perspective on negotiation with hostile states.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 22, 2008 18:41:31 GMT -8
I thought I'd place this response back under it's proper and more volatile home. Hi Kegan, Its seems rather obvious to me that this was little more that a racial endorsement. Lets face it, If it were a white candidate who held the same political views and had the same foreign policy experience as Obama, Colin Powell would have endorsed McCain. This may not be a popular statement but in my opinion it is accurate. I think any objective observers will see it the same way. In fact I don't even have problem with it. I just wish Powell would have been honest about his reasons for endorsing, rather than coming up with, what seemed to be weak points about the handling of the financial crisis, and supreme court justices. By the way, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly it was that Obama did during the financial crisis that was so encouraging to Powell. Perhaps it was the fact that Obama hid and said call me if you need me. Now that leadership  . Dude? Robin? Really? I think you may have let you political persuasion get the better of you this time. I would like to respond to this sentence by sentence. Hi Kegan, Its seems rather obvious to me that this was little more that a racial endorsement. How in the world is this obvious? Because they're both part black*?  I hope not. Lets face it, If it were a white candidate who held the same political views and had the same foreign policy experience as Obama, Colin Powell would have endorsed McCain. This is a very big assumption, and one that I don't think should be made. On what basis do you make this claim? or more simply, how would you know? This may not be a popular statement but in my opinion it is accurate. Its popularity depends on its audience i.e. I bet it was pretty popular to the audience Rush Limbaugh was saying it to. I think any objective observers will see it the same way. Do you see yourself as an objective observer? And what facts would an objective observer have to come to such a conclusion? In fact I don't even have problem with it. If it were the case I wouldn't have much of a problem with it either. I think having a black president would be a huge step for this country given our history. I would rank it behind many other reasons to vote for a person, but consider it a huuuuuge bonus. I just wish Powell would have been honest about his reasons for endorsing, rather than coming up with, what seemed to be weak points about the handling of the financial crisis, and supreme court justices. Are you saying he was lying, and (once again) how would you know? This whole opinion is based on bad assumptions, judging peoples motives and bad logic. Using this logic, Colin Powell could either endorse the "right" candidate, McCain, or the "racial" one, Obama. Also, using this logic anyone white who endorses McCain could be said to be racist. I think that this also belittles both Powell's and Obama's intellect and character. I don't know if you got this from Limbaugh (I heard that this is what he was saying) or not, but I think you should examine this a little closer, as well as the mentality** that would lead someone to immediately jump to this conclusion. By the way, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly it was that Obama did during the financial crisis that was so encouraging to Powell. Perhaps it was the fact that Obama hid and said call me if you need me. Now that leadership . I'm not terribly impressed w/ how either candidate has handled the financial crisis. However, I think they were both sort of between a rock and hard place. Particularly McCain***. *If anyone thinks the term African American (or something else) is more appropriate let me know. I just thought I'd put it how I talk. **This is an example of the mentality that has me so disillusioned w/ the republican party. ***I was less impressed w/ McCain, but given his view of the market, and government, and deregulation, etc. he didn't have much room to turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 20:09:25 GMT -8
Ya Robin. The stronger the claim the more factual backing it needs and I can't imagine how one could get facts to back up an intuitive assumption like this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 23, 2008 8:29:57 GMT -8
First of all I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I have Satellite radio and spend most of my time listening to news stations, or sports talk, with a little Conservative talk mixed in, but not Rush. By the way there is nothing wrong with Rush, I just find no time to listen to him.
The fact that they are both black is part of my reasoning, but it also includes the fact that Powell has never endorsed a liberal the likes of Obama before regardless of color. The big one for me is that he was grasping for anything but race when he gave his endorsement and none of it made any sense.
For example he said the he doesn't like Palin, and that John McCain was running a negative campaign. He also accused McCain of calling Obama a Muslim, which never happened and is an outright distortion of the truth.
Also in his endorsement he said that he liked the way that Obama handled the financial crisis. I would like Powell, or anyone to explain what he did during the financial crisis that was so wonderful.
Let me say this. I will give you a list of things that McCain and Powell have in common, and would indicate that Powell would generally be expected to endorse him over his liberal counterpart (Obama)
1. Powell is a former member of the military, as was John McCain.
2. Both McCain and Powell can be considered fiscal conservatives.
3. Powell and Senator McCain are both Republicans. As a matter of fact Powell has attended or spoken at the Republican National Conventions of both 2000 and 2004.
Perhaps someone could share the common ties that Powell and Obama have.
Every bit as objective as you, or Kegan.
I don't believe he was being honest about his endorsement. but didn't say I knew it, I said I believed it.
Thats right. When I believe that someone is not being honest with me I am required to make a judgment base on all the information I have. Base on what I know of Powell and he political leanings, and his weak endorsement based on the issues, I conclude that there is something more to the endorsement. I believe there is a racial factor.
No your wrong. There are plenty of black people who have endorsed Obama that I don't believe are racial endorsements because they have consistently endorsed and voted for the most liberal candidate. I don't think it is racial to see Al Sharpton endorse Obama because he would have endorsed any liberal candidate of the Conservative one, just as he has done in the past. However that is not the case for Powell. This endorsement is a departure from his endorsements in the past, therefore it must be looked at critically.
I must say that I don't feel compelled at all to be politically correct. It is imperative that we weigh out the issues honestly even if what we say doesn't sound nice.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2008 9:51:34 GMT -8
Robin,
Thanks for providing some more substantial evidence in support of your intuition. I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 23, 2008 21:10:56 GMT -8
Robin, kudos, you have successfully given a better defense of your position than I expected possible given your position, but I still think you are completely missing the mark. I also would ask that you (and others) watch Powell's endorsement again (or for the first time). I just watched it for the first time and disagree w/ your assessment just as much, if not more, than before. He gives valid reasons for endorsing Obama: his intellect, who he chose as vice president, his demeanor, leadership skill, the inclusive nature of his campaign, he's crossing demographic lines, he's surrounding himself w/ the right people, the way he looks at and dissects problems facing the American people and so on. And he also voices his concerns about the repulcan party and the direction it's moving in terms of its tactics and ideology. And voicing his concerns about McCain's reaction to the financial crisis, his pick for VP, and his campaigns tactics. On top of this his critiques are IMO valid, but he also voiced them in a very respectful manner. Plus, he addressed this question of race (as well as 1 or 2 of your other points) IN THE INTERVIEW. I think it would be best to take the man at his word. I would also say you are still (even w/ some defense) making some assumption and judging peoples motives which we should be veeeery careful of. A few other things. He also accused McCain of calling Obama a Muslim, which never happened and is an outright distortion of the truth. He absolutely did not! It may have been unintentional, but the above quote is the distortion of the truth. he said the he doesn't like Palin He didn't say he didn't like her. He actually said something nice about her, but said he didn't think she was ready to be president if needed (which is the VP's job) and that she would move the party further to the right, which he doesn't agree with. Every bit as objective as you, or Kegan. If I could be so bold as to submit that I do think (at least on the issue of politics, the election, etc) I am more objective than you. Up until about 10 months ago I was a moderate/independent who leaned to the right on many issues. In 2000 I was going to vote for George Bush or Ralph Nader (Ralph Nader because I thought it would be good for the system to have a third party have a voice). I don't rememer who I penciled in. In '04 I voted for Kerry, for no other reason than I wasn't really sure, and didn't really care. So I voted the way people around me seemed most passionate about. I have gone from thinking the 2000 election in Florida was won fair and square, to being convinced it was stolen, and then back again. I was a quick defender of the Iraq war up until the last year and a half or so, when I felt convinced it was unjust and unnecessary. I've said when I've been disappointed w/ Obama during his campaign, and thought John McCain was one of the better candidates the republicans had to offer. I could go on, but my back is sore from patting it so much.  I don't believe he was being honest about his endorsement. but didn't say I knew it, I said I believed it. Yes, but when you say things like "it's rather obvious" and "any objective observer", it comes off to me as a "this is the way it is!" type of a statement. Thats right. When I believe that someone is not being honest with me I am required to make a judgment base on all the information I have. Base on what I know of Powell and he political leanings, and his weak endorsement based on the issues, I conclude that there is something more to the endorsement. I believe there is a racial factor. Fair enough, but the question is why do you feel like someone isn't being honest w/ you? Is there enough real reason to go on? For instance, if it was a white republican who came out and endorsed Obama (which has happened) and said the exact same things, then what? Still racial? I would assume not. I'm not accusing you of being racist, never thought it, and fully take you at your word. However, the problem with your initial point, as I see it, is using your same rationale I "could" accuse you of being racist. So then Joe Lieberman's (or any other white democrat for that matter) endorsement was racial, right? I also think people who are not racist per se, can make "racial" statements w/out realizing the full extent of it. And I think we should be aware of this and check ourselves when possible. PS I must say that I don't feel compelled at all to be politically correct. It is imperative that we weigh out the issues honestly even if what we say doesn't sound nice. True dat. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 7:58:37 GMT -8
No surprise here. Perception is reality. The arguments that Powell made, you find to be convincing because you agree with him. I don't. But beyond that I feels his assessment of the two candidates and their campaigns to be a stretch. Why? I'm allowed to think and ponder not only his words now, but his past words and actions and use them all to come to a conclusion. Why? Everything we do is motivated by something. Why should I not try and figure out what that motivation is? When I see something abnormal like a conservative republican endorsing the most liberal member of the senate, my intellect requires that I look beyond rhetoric. So let me get this right. In a conversation about who he is going to endorse for president he argues against John McCain, by say that others in the campaign called him a Muslim. Seems rather week, and a poor attempt to hold McCain responsible for someone else's actions. The fair and honest thing for Powell to say would have been that McCain in opposition to those in his party has made it clear the Obama is a Christian, and his religious ties are off limits. Just like he did to the S. Carolina Republican party when they ran adds about Rev. Wright. Also there was an instance when a talk show host who introduce McCain at a rally referred to Obama as "Barak Hussein Obama" and McCain said immediately apologized and said it was uncalled for. If he wants to talk about party responsibility for Obama being called a Muslim, he should look at the Democratic party. It was Hillary Clinton who released a photo of Obama dressed in traditional Muslim clothing including a turban. Did Powell bring that up? He should have. It was the democrats not the republicans that started this rumor and ran with it. Either Powell doesn't know the facts or he is distorting them. Thanks for bring this up, because it is a perfect example of the reaching that Powell had to do in order to endorse Obama. Did he say why? he offered no reasons as to why he thinks she is unqualified. He simply gave her a cheap compliment and then insulted her abilities with any defense of his words. I would compare it with a boxer lifting up a persons chin just to deliver the knockout blow. It seems rather undistinguished for a man of his caliber to treat her in that fashion. Again, more proof that he was reaching and offered little substance to back up his claim. If I just tell you I'm more objective than you, will you just take my word for it, or will you look at things I've said in the past and my past actions to come to your own conclusion? ;D Trust me Nate, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that you are not objective, at least no more than I. Right! Whats the problem? Its my opinion that any objective observer would see it my way. If they have the facts. ;D I feel like I already answered this question. By the way, republican does not mean conservative. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hegal endorsed Obama, but he is a liberal through and through, and only registered as a republican to get elected in a Republican state. It is not about Republican/Democrat so much as liberal/Conservative. Powell on the issues if fiscal responsibility including tax policy, and national defense has been conservative, and agrees with John McCain, not Obama. Senator Hegal is a liberal and has alway agreed with Obama on these issues, making his endorsement of Obama not surprising. Senator Lieberman has said that on many issues he disagrees with McCain, but on the most important they are on the same page. That is the war on Terrorism. Also Lieberman has never even hinted that his endorsement has anything to do with race, where Powell has. Well we are all grown ups here, and none of us are racists so I think in the spirit of honest debate we should avoid trying to guilt people out of expressing an honest and fair opinion. Thanks for talking about this. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 24, 2008 9:53:03 GMT -8
Robin:
Did he say this or not? Saying that people in McCain's camp said it is qualitatively different than saying McCain himself called Obama a Muslim as you originally said. If he didn't literally say it I think you should own up to your interpretation.
I certainly hope that ultimately reality is reality indepedent of our perception and that through dialogue and logic we can clear our perceptions as much as possible.
Lastly, a reminder to season all our words with love.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 10:09:24 GMT -8
As far as I'm concerned, if he holds McCain responsible for those words, it is equal to accusing him of using those words. I don't feel it is fair to allow Powell to weasel out of this one, as if saying " he (Powell) didn't technically say McCain called Obama a Muslim" is worth anything after the accusation has already been made even if it was diguised as a republican smear. If he said that his endorsement includes the fact that those in the republican party (not even in his campaign) call Obama a Muslim, than he is holding McCain responsible for other peoples words, and therefore Powell is guilty of attributing these words to McCain. Justice requires fairness, and this line of attack was un-fair.
Let me ask you this. Given the facts that it was Hillary who started the Muslim Rumor and those tied to her campaign issued the now famous photo to the media, and in fact it was McCain has been outspoken on this issue and said himself that "Obama is a Christian", and those tied to his campaign will not be allowed to smear Obama in this fashion. Is it fair for Powell to bring this up as part of his reasoning for the endorsement? This is an injustice and a character assassination on the part of Powell. He may not have said it in so many words but that does not absolve him of the responsibility of attaching McCain to those comments. His comments leave the listener with the impression that this is how McCain is operating his campaign.
So let me return to you with this question. Does Powell have any responsibility to be honest about the facts? Does not fairness require that we question his judgment it tyeing McCain to those comments? Just because he did not use the words McCain accused him of being a Muslim, does not mean that he (Powell) should be given a free pass for him distortion of the facts. Look it up. Everything I told you is true.
All this goes to prove my original point. Powell's endorsement was filled with weak inconsistent arguments, and therefore we must consider that there are other reasons for the endorsement. I think it was race, given that fact that Powell said that the election of an African American would be monumental.
Robin
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 10:26:55 GMT -8
If this were the case, we would always agree on everything. I think you hope for the impossible, at least in this life. I think at best we can strive for understanding that others will always see reality a little different because of their life experiences. perhaps that is even better than seeing everything the same.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 10:34:51 GMT -8
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that he in fact did accuse McCain. If Powell says that republicans have said this about Obama,and is using this to distance himself from McCain, at least politically, then it leads one to believe that at some level Powell thinks McCain is responsible. Am I wrong?
Lets face it. People see the republican party and the McCain Campaign as little more than an extension of McCain and his positions, therefore when someone says that the republican party says "Obama is a Muslim", there is an insinuation that McCain endorses those comments, and of course he does not. Powell Unfairly accused McCain of being behind those comments, at least thats how I see it. Why else bring it up as part of his endorsement of Obama. Lets face it, all sorts of un-fair things are said on both sides durring a campaign, but Powell forgot to mention the nasty comments made by Democrats towards McCain and Palin, or the nasty things said about Obama, by democrats durring the primary election.
By the way, there is more on pg. 5.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 24, 2008 17:09:06 GMT -8
W-h-a-a-t? Robin, you would have had to have been living under a rock for the past 200 years not to think that the election of an African American would be monumental! Gee whiz! How does that go from being a factual observation to a racial endorsement? |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 18:22:56 GMT -8
W-h-a-a-t? Robin, you would have had to have been living under a rock for the past 200 years not to think that the election of an African American would be monumental! Gee whiz! How does that go from being a factual observation to a racial endorsement? Margot, you need to read my comment in it's context. I was responding to the question of whether Lieberman's endorsement was racial because both he and McCain are white. My response was no. It was not even mentioned as a possibility that it was a racial endorsement, nor would that make any sense, being that the election of a white man is of no consequence. Now I actually agree that the election of a black man would be wonderful. I just don't want it to be Obama, and given Powell's political leanings it seems rather odd the he would want Obama elected. So how is it that you say that "I had to have been living under a rock for the past 200 years not to think that the election of an African American would be monumental!" when if fact I would love it if Michael Steele, or Kenneth Blackwell were elected, and I have said as much elsewhere on this thread. However, the fact that it would be monumental does not mean we should all ignore what is best for the country in order to elect a black person. By the way, your tone seems quite accusatory. Perhaps you are reading too much into my words. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 24, 2008 19:18:55 GMT -8
I don't have time to reply in depth, and feel I have already laid out some pretty sound critiques of your opinion. My sense from your responses is that you won't be budging on this topic, but a couple quick questions.
do you agree that using your approach to this issue, I could accuse you of being racist?
If no, why not?
What would your assessment be if a white republican said the same exact same things about Obama?
PS My point about Lieberman wasn't that he was endorsing McCain because he is white, it was that he was (using your logic) not endorsing Obama because he is black.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 19:20:38 GMT -8
Margot,
One more thought here. If what I suspect is true, and that is that Powell's endorsement is based of race not policy, I don't have a problem with the endorsement. I think it is only human to support those that you identify with for whatever reason. For example, my father is Mormon and he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney because they share a common faith, when Mitt lost in the primaries he was considering not voting because of his disappointment. My mother became more excited about the election when Palin was chosen to run as McCain's VP. These are normal reactions. I just think Powell was wrong to hide his motives, and smear McCain in the process. I have lost allot of respect for him, and thats unfortunate.
Robin
|
|
.
I hope not.
