- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Eminentoes
What Do You Do With a General?
(Page 2 of 3)
Also surfacing momentarily in all of the intensity that is the 2008 election is the notice from Mr. Christopher Buckley, son of and all that, concerning his intention to vote for Senator O..balm….a (as Rush Limbaugh lovingly pronounces the name.)
It should be said here that beyond one of those across-the-room glances at a National Review festivity to which I was invited sometime back, I have never made Mr. Buckley's acquaintance. One certainly presupposes that he is not, as he has apparently been labeled by some irritated NR friend, "cretinous." Clearly he is talented, witty, a superb writer and all of the things one would expect the son of William F. Buckley, Jr. to be.
Yet based entirely on my own observations of The Truths of Life as We Know It, like all sons (or daughters) he is that exactly. A son, not a clone, a knock-off or a facsimile. Not to wax too philosophically, the happiest part -- linked always to the saddest part -- of life is the uniqueness of the individual. William F. Buckley, Jr., like my father and yours, was sui generis. While here he was doubtless an unending source of joy for his son as his son surely was for him. At his death, as with the death of any parent, there is the understandable urge by others to cast the son as the father except younger -- and alive. It is a wish denied always and universally. Chris Buckley may have been suffering during his father's life with a particularly acute case of "son block"…but, with mixed emotions I'm sure, the younger Buckley is now in the limelight on his own. As it should be.
So the news of Christopher Buckley's endorsement of Barack Obama should be regarded with interest as opposed to betrayal, that most primal of words. In which case, Buckley's arguments as expressed in his Obama endorsement deserve a response if for no other reason than the importance of reason itself. Here's Buckley's version as he presented his decision on Tina Brown's The Daily Beast:
If I may inquire politely, what on earth is Chris Buckley thinking?
First, one has to wonder at this description of John McCain. This campaign has made him "inauthentic" with a once first-class temperament suddenly gone "irascible and snarly"?? Really? Or is this in fact the same John McCain, the exact same John McCain, that has caused conservative unease about nominating him in the first place? Buckley seems to imply that McCain's attacks on the good Reverends Falwell and Robertson towards the tail end of his 2000 campaign were authentic. That his votes against the Bush tax cuts were authentic.
National Review was a big supporter of Mitt Romney during the primaries, and it was Romney who doggedly attacked McCain with lines like this: "He voted against the Bush tax cuts -- twice. That's failing Reagan 101." Mr. McCain, listening now to Mitt Romney as well as Steve Forbes and Jack Kemp among others, has clearly worked his way back to an approximation of Reagan 101, a place he was assumed to be when he was first elected to Congress as a Reaganite. Before Jerry Falwell, a decided Reaganite, passed away McCain had come around there too, embracing what might be called Reagan 2.0, the role of social issues in the Reagan coalition.
There is no reason in the world that Chris Buckley has to be a supporter of "Reagan 101." Or Reagan 2.0. But surely to oppose the importance of tax-cutting economics at a minimum in favor of a program that focuses on "spreading the wealth around" is decidedly un-conservative in principle. If Chris Buckley seems not to know this, Joe the Plumber does.
HERE'S ANOTHER Buckley argument:
"McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power."
This is, of course, true. Like a lot of Americans I find the power of McCain's biography to be staggering. It speaks volumes about the man's character, tenacity and devotion to his country. It is certainly unfair to Obama to expect a similar biography. Yet it is perfectly fair to follow the thread of philosophical conviction that runs through the biographical experiences of both men and understand exactly where this would lead the country when one of them sits down behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office on January 20th.
The relevance of Obama's relationships with people like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko is as obvious as McCain's relationships with fellow POWs and Navy buddies. It is not only not nasty to bring up the Ayers connection it is important -- critically so. It tells, as it does with anyone, something about the way they think. It is an X-ray of what the candidate finds himself philosophically comfortable with. To "pal" around with Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, which doled out grants to the deeply-nutty, consistently fraudulent and very-left wing ACORN amounting to $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002) says volumes about Obama's mind-set. To sit for twenty years listening to Wright's sermons says the same. Not to mention having a serious "help me buy property" relationship with the unsavory and now convicted Rezko.
Buckley is apparently OK with the idea that this mindset of Obama's will be running say, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Education. Both places could easily find themselves with ACORN-true believers in key positions making decisions on everything from voter fraud to federal grants. Or granting a presidential pardon to Mr. Rezko, the latter the type of mindset that was a staple of the Clinton administration. This not only has nothing to do with whether one is "conservative" it zeros in on whether one has a well-established record of left-wing activism and bad judgment calls on political associates. It is about basic standards of honesty and competence in government and whether they will be upheld in the most elementary fashion required of a functioning government.
Mr. Buckley looks at all this and gives Obama a pass -- because McCain, the personification of personal integrity, is "snarly." Again with respect, Mr. Buckley seems to be casting himself as willfully un-serious.
As for Buckley's other stated reasons for supporting Obama, one can only read slack-jawed. Quoting the old Oliver Wendell Holmes bit about FDR, he says of Obama that he has a "first class temperament." Presidentially speaking, this could have been said of Warren Harding, who's temperament was just dandy even as he ran one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Ditto with Pennsylvania's James Buchanan, who, as Buckley has noted, sits at the bottom of most presidential rankings. Truman and Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, both of explosive temperaments that remind of McCain, did just fine. Even more than Buckley's "temperament" argument is his notion that Obama should be president because he is a "first-rate" writer. This gives one to assume that had he been old enough in, say, 1952, Buckley would have rejected Eisenhower for Hemingway. In which case America would have imbibed its way through the fifties in a semi-alcoholic haze only to find shortly after JFK's ascension that former President Hemingway had become the first president in history to blow his own brains out. It would have been tragic, of course, but the late President was such a first-rate writer even if his judgment was a little dicey.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
James Sweet| 10.21.08 @ 7:25AM
Wow, that piece reminds me of college when I used to stay up all night to finish papers. At some point you realize it doesn't much matter what it says, as long as you pick out the main points that the instructor expects and expand on them with some hopefully clever device you can return to again and again. It's called 'thinking inside the box,' and you do it beautifully Mr. Lord. It's great that you were able to tease out what you wanted from those endorsements to fit your view of the facts.
Gordon Plumber| 10.21.08 @ 8:18AM
Apparently, despite your wishful thinking and ridiculous verbosity, quite a few people do actually care what Colin Powell thinks. Having waded through your bizarre and tenuous stretch to avoid addressing even one point made by the much more eloquent Mr. Powell, the only question your "article" really begs is: Who is Jeffrey Lord, and who cares what he thinks? Good luck with that.
David Shoup| 10.21.08 @ 9:09AM
Well, General Powell has made it clear what he really is: an opportunist, knee-jerk moderate. He is not a man of principle for the benefit of our country but someone who simple loves the seat of power.
Karin| 10.21.08 @ 9:10AM
I would hardly call this piece bizarre and tenuous, Gordon. You guys love to just call these articles a few names, with no supporting arguments. A lazy post indeed. Mr. Lord, I agree with you on Chris Buckley. Decidedly unserious. I think he's just trying to get into the best Manhattan cocktail parties. Wonder who he'll really vote for when he pulls the curtain?
Boria| 10.21.08 @ 9:11AM
Powell has never been a conservative. He has always been pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. He served his country well in uniform and at State. W may have overestimated Powell's ability to serve him loyally. May have something to do with the Bush Family tendency to always reach out and trust people, no matter what the consequences... Rummy and Condy had the hardest time keeping Powell on the reservation. Odd fact: Neither Obama nor Powell are "real" African Americans. Both are first generation, one from a Kenyan father, the other from Jamaican parents. They deserve each other.
A. DiPentima| 10.21.08 @ 10:40AM
Perhaps James and Gordon can enlighten us as to exactly what Messers. Powell and Buckley find so "transcending" about Obama that allows one to jettison all reason in order to support this truly marginally qualified and demonstrably leftist candidate. Frankly, I found Powell's rationale to be conclusionary, without prior facts in support thereof. Powell's polemic on MTP was desidedly partisan, (he's now a Constitutional scholar in addition to being a diplomat) especially when Powell concluded apriori, (as the senior Mr. Buckley might have observed) that Obama had accomplished presidential feats prior to actually having done so. It was a remarkable leap of faith for a man who holds himself out to be a sober and measured statesman. As for Mr. Buckley, Mr. Lord is correct, McCain is precisely the moderate Republican that should suit the likes of Christopher to a T. But in the end, for these elites, and that's who & what they are, it's all about Obama being "transformational". Well, with all due respect to Chris Buckley, it's no longer about seperating the "Right from the kooks", but rather, that Obama that has seperated you, Powell and a lot of folks, from reality.
Jeremy Jester| 10.21.08 @ 11:08AM
The question I would like to ask both Powell and Buckley: Why endorse a candidate that espouses Marxist values or socialist sentiments at every turn? Unfortunately, if you ask such a question of the candidate (or his surrogates) you are tarred and feathered as a racist or thrown under the press bus a la Joe the Plumber.
J.C.Eaton| 10.21.08 @ 11:54AM
I truly don't understand the crabbiness of Messrs. Sweet and Plumber. Sometimes there is way too much "thinking outside the box," resulting in witless twaddle. If Mr. Lord IS thinking inside that ole' box, he's doing so cogently. The Buckley business is of no interest to me, he's got an opinion, so what. But Powell....now that's a horse of a different wheelbase. This guy has taken more oaths than all the jurors in Christendom and yet, when the crunch came, and Scooter Libby was wrongly fingered[and look at the price he continues to pay] where was our tribune of the people? Where was our pillar of rectitude and lion of integrity? I'll tell you where he was; he was keeping his well-compensated trap shut about the real flannelmouth: R. Armitage. Mr. Lord hit the salient issue just fine.
David M. Bethune| 10.21.08 @ 12:03PM
Hello Jeff: All I can say is that "White Christmas" is one of my all-time tear jerker movies and your essay is magnificent, magnificent, magnificent. No more needs to be said about Colin and Chris. The boys are done, for now. Gracias.
Frank Burns| 10.21.08 @ 12:48PM
Powell really blew his credibility with this ill-conceived endorsement of Barack Obama - here we have a black man rightfully promoted, based on his integrity and experienced, to 4-star general and Cabinet member by Republicans (not to mention his son given chairmanship of the FCC) - yet he turns around to endorse Barack, a man clearly inexperienced, and hardly deserving of being promoted from junior senator and "community organizer" to POTUS, the most powerful position in the world. Yet it's not about "race" - yet Powell makes it seem, perhaps unwittingly so, that it really IS about race; both are black; yet the man he's endorsing hasn't a whiff of Powell's own experience; is it because he felt stung by the WMD debacle? (apparently the only issue he won't re-address: since Clinton gave Hussein - Saddam, that is - 8 full years to redeploy - he got stuck and now it's payback time);
BTW, I recall that Frontpagemag, about 3 years ago, ran a series of photos showing Iraqi jets and weapons literally buried underground!
Michael Roush| 10.21.08 @ 1:10PM
Are you by any chance the Frank Burns of M*A*S*H fame?
OCPatriot| 10.21.08 @ 1:21PM
Only thing wrong with your article is its bias. Case in point: "The relevance of Obama's relationships with people like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko is as obvious as McCain's relationships with fellow POWs and Navy buddies." Ooops, you left out McCain's relationships with people like Keating and Watergate convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, as well as Senator Gramm, and Governor Palin's relationship with the Alaska Independence Party that wants to secede from the United States. To “pal around” with these people is as good a way to show what kind of people McCain and Palin are – two convicted felons and a group that hates America so much it wants to become a separate state.
OCPatriot| 10.21.08 @ 1:27PM
I get so fed up with people like Rush Limbaugh saying that it's because of "race" that Powell endorsed Obama, don't you? Powell gave very specific reasons why he endorsed Obama over McCain, and if you're prejudiced, you don't listen to them and make up the "color" thing. Actually, by the way, Obama is not "black" he is "1/2 white". And, at the risk of alienating many people, I'd say Palin and McCain are "yellow." Palin for lying when saying, the Troopergate verdict showed I did nothing wrong ethically; and McCain for not owning up to the slime of his robocalls. I, by the way, tend to flush “red” when taking my niacin pills. Otherwise I'm “pink.” Limbaugh is kinda "pasty" now. When are we as Americans going to get over the color of other peoples' skins?
aleena| 10.21.08 @ 2:22PM
Ocpatriot,
Senator Obama went to a church that was openly racist for twenty years. He used a line from one of Rev. Wright's sermon's as a title for a book he wrote. And in all those twenty years, he didn't know what his church was about? What does this show. Either he's lying or oblivious. Which of these qualities would you like in a president?
Neither Senator McCain nor Governor Palin have had anything like this in their past. All of Senator Obama's associations have been with anti-American people who hate this country. You know this is true but chose to ignore it. And substitute fluff.
Michael Roush| 10.21.08 @ 3:02PM
Aleena,
If Reverend Wright bothers you, please research Sarah Palin's former church where a witchcraft hunting pastor laid hands on Ms. Wright and invoke Jesus to protect her from witchcraft. While your at it, do a little research on the Alaska Independence Party and the Palins' association with that group. You'll find some eye-popping anti-American rhetoric there. Worried about William Ayers. Look into McCain association with G. Gordon Liddy. If your a values voter, you might want to read up on McCain's affair with his current wife while he was still married and about the circumstances surrounding his divorce. Please don't respond with any nonsense about "smearing" McCain or Palin. The GOP has done nothing but run a smear campaign. There is no moral ground there on which to stand.
J David| 10.21.08 @ 3:13PM
That piece, Mr Lord, was a work of art, suitable for framing. If I had ever written anything that good in my entire life I would consider it a signal achievement.
El Rushbo just said a few minutes ago that though what little importance there was to Powell's endorsement won't extend beyond tomorrow, his betrayal will be remembered forever... but I like how you said it even better. Delicious!
This piece tasted so good, in fact, I had trouble repressing that moan one utters when deeply pleased by the flavor beyond their expectations.
A. DiPentima| 10.21.08 @ 3:55PM
O.C. Patriot is a classic liberal Democrat. In his/her first post, O.C. resorts to the time tested leftist carnard of moral equivalency. Ayers, Wright & Rezko are canceled out by the Keating 5, Liddy(?), Gramm(?) & Watergate. End of story, move on. What's ignored are Obama's attachments to Ayers, & Wright & what they tell us about Obama; that Obama is comfortable with radical Marxist redistribution politics, ACORN tactics, Black Liberation Theology and those who espouse these causes. Obama is a radical leftist trained by Saul Alinsky, Ayers and ACORN. No such claim can be made about Keating et al and McCain. In addition, Bob Bennett, Democrat counsel to the investigation of Keating, said that McCain had no involvment and should not be investigated, but the Dems insisted on keeping an R in the mix so as not to make this a Democrat thing. His exact words. As to O.C.'s 2nd post about Powell & race, I heard the endorsment and heard nothing of substance. I heard cheap, wornout, partisan attacks on all things Republican, the same Republicans that made Powell who & what he is today, starting with Reagan to W. What I did hear was Powell say that Obama's candidacy was "transformational". Perhaps O.C. can answer the question I posited to James & Gordan earlier; what exactly makes Obama's candidacy "transformational"? Certainly not his paper thin resume. Not his limited time in elected office. Not his lack of private sector experience. So, O.C., what is it? As Juan Williams said, it's all about race. Why is this so hard to admit? P.S. You got some nerve calling a war hero who suffered unimageable torture over 5 yrs, yellow. You have no shame and no decency. You are, like Powell & Buckley, seperated from reality.
David Shoup| 10.21.08 @ 4:19PM
Regarding Governor Palin's relationship with the Alaska Independence Party, secession is not an un-American issue. In 1776, this country was founded on secession. It has arisen from time to time since then, say between 1861-65. Some years ago, Dr. Walter Williams wrote an editorial on the subject and said that article generated the most mail of any of his other editorials. His point was that our elected officials and agents of the federal government paid so little attention to their Constitutional limitations and fiscal responsibility that the only way for good American citizens to "send a message" to these official bandits and tyrants was to secede. In today's dangerous world, secession is not a good idea. But with 10 trillion dollars of debt, and Congress (such as Barney Frank) still spending like Congressmen ( I refuse to say "drunken sailors"), would someone else tell me how else to bring the federal government under control?
OCPatriot| 10.21.08 @ 4:32PM
What makes Obama's campaign (Mr or Ms DiPentima) is the fact that the majority of Obama's stupendous campaign monies have come from individual contributions of about $84 each, and therefore he's less indebted to major oil companies and entrenched business groups. What also makes it transformational is the well-built organization he has built nationally in such a short time, unlike McCain's casually run group, which zigs and zags on too many issues. Obama has a fully staffed transitional group waiting for the move into the White House; in contrast McCain has none, and prefers to wait till after his election, which will mean a big gap in putting the right people in the right place. It will also be transformational in that a person of color will inhabit the White House, thus showing the world a new aspect of America (the crowds Obama attracted in Europe are indicative of that) and maybe reversing the disdain Europe and the rest of the world has had for Bush/Republican policies for the last two terms. After 9/11 the world was with us; after invasion of Iraq, unlike his father's war, Bush and the Republican Party lost our allies' respect. What's also transformational is we may have an intelligent person as President, as opposed to the last two terms, someone who thinks before he acts, unlike McCain who goes by his gut. By the way, McCain was a war hero, but that was decades ago, he wasn't yellow then but he lies through his teeth now, and is a coward about that; he wanted Lieberman as his VP and he gave in to the idiots who are currently running his campaign, the Bush alumi and the lobbyists; he's using the same slimers who robocalled him out in the South when he ran against Bush, the same company he disdained then; and, by the way, robocalls I believe are essentially a cowards' way to campaign. And don't call me a Liberal Democrat because I'm a Proud Independent and would have voted for McCain instead of Bush last time around; I didn't like Kerry. (By the way, McCain's wife had a joint investment with Keating; McCain went on mutual vacations with him; McCain wrote a letter to plead for Keating; so in your alternative universe McCain had no involvement with Keating. Keating and Libby are convicted felons, got that? McCain hung out with both of them. If that isn't factual enough for you, I challenge you to prove that statement is untrue. What does that say about McCain's friends and his personality. He also celebrated his 70th birthday on a visit to Maceondia aboard a yacht with Ann Hathaway and her boyfriend who has already pleaded guilty to numerous offenses, again hanging out with known, repeat known, criminals, if you want to get into associations. Not to mention Governor Palin's association with that separatist party in Alaska. No, I don't dislike Republicans and even wanted to vote for McClintock in California, a real fiscal conservative who made sense, but his own party savaged him and put up the Terminator for governor.
Bob| 10.21.08 @ 5:26PM
Powell admitted that race had something to do with his decision. After that concession, the rest is meaningless. There's a word for it...
jr| 10.21.08 @ 5:37PM
From ignorance: has Powell previously endorsed a presidential nominee? If Oama was 1/2 white, would Powell have endorsed him? Was Powell part of the illegitimate transfer of white accomplishments to "minorities?" Is this the result of nitwit Jorge Bush not firing the black general? Or, typically, was Jorge afraid of the backlash from black voters? Now there are 9 of 10 blacks voting for Obama along with the illegals that flooded the borders when Jorge Bush was not doing his job? If he had fired Powell perhaps there would be 10 out of 10 voting for Obama -- so what is the difference?
A. DiPentima| 10.21.08 @ 6:02PM
Gee O.C. , you make the adage about he who argues with a fool might be confused with one, something that I should take heed of. But I'll take the chance. As I read your reply, I find nothing of substance, but rather a jumble of disconnected bits of information & talking points that tell me nothing about why Obama is qualified to be president. The fact that Obama & the DNC are able to run a good campaign, with lots of questionable donations, does not make Obama a "transformational" candidate. You apparently are enthralled with this fact and the bit about a transition team ready to storm the W.H. Are you for real? Can I also infer from your post that you think Obama's working relationship with ACORN is a nifty bit campaign footwork? Are you happy that this election is now tainted? Are you also proud that Obama has raised over $200M from questionable sourses, that he won't disclose until after the election? You still don't see the vacuity of your moral equlivance argument, either. Keating & the rest of the names you've mentioned, are not FOUNDATIONAL elements of who & what McCain is. Ayers, Wright, Alinsky and Franklin Davis are. That is a fact." You claim Obama will wash away Europe's & the world's distain for America, (another bit of elitist, leftist tripe that rational folks find distasteful) yet Joe Biden told us yesterday that Obama will be tested upon his election. Why would Obama need to be tested if the man is truly transformational? What are we missing here? So America will still be operating in a dangerous world? You mean Obama isn't going to change this? Finally, you claim that "a person of color, as president, will show the world a new aspect of America." (There's that inferiority you elites have) You mean, unlike all of Europe and Russia, America will have a leader of color? Yet we still have to prove ourselves to them? Do I have this right? Sorry O.C., you are exactly the voter type the Obama campaign has aimed at, but at least you acknowledged, finally, the Obama thing is about race afterall. Let's hope more rational thinkers vote on Nov. 4th, for our sake, as well as Europe's.
OCPatriot| 10.21.08 @ 6:35PM
Dear A.D.: These are your words: "Are you happy that this election is now tainted? Are you also proud that Obama has raised over $200M from questionable sources, that he won't disclose until after the election?" There is no "taint" and you have jumped to a conclusion about ACORN because you want desperately to believe there is something wrong with that group. There have been no, I repeat, NO, significant proven charges about voter fraud in the U.S. for some time now, and I might bring you to the recent Republican financed voter switching from Democrat to Republican as an example that fraud does exist. I also note your angry words about "storm the White House," which have nothing to do with the points I was making in answer to your posting, and indicate your inflammatory message. Preparing for the transition is not the same as "storming" the White House; if people aren't in place, it is messy, inefficient and we could lose quite a bit in terms of being an effective country in these perilous times. Oh, yes, Keating was "foundational:' he taught McCain that if you associate yourself with wealthy people you can have a lavish lifestyle. You want to demonize Obama, go ahead, but it's a spurious claim and has nothing to do with the way he conducts himself today: Obama does associate himself with Warren Buffet who is someone I admire deeply; maybe you don't but you're in the minority there. As for allies, George Bush Senior understood that you need them and have to persuade them to leverage your way in this world. Europe, for example, is as powerful as we are in terms of economic strength. Without allies, you can fail in a war today; this is a lesson our current President has learned. You obviously hate Obama and love McCain and Palin, so I wish you well and hope that at a future time you may enjoy what it is you want.
j Stuart| 10.21.08 @ 9:02PM
Powell was an affirmative action hire.
Seymore| 10.21.08 @ 10:46PM
Man, what’s wrong with you people. Some of you honestly think Powell is a traitor to the republic party? These aren’t sports teams we’re talking about here… What’s funny is that had Powell come out and endorsed McCain, the same people that are calling him names and downplaying his significance would be praising him and citing his endorsement as evidence to why McCain is qualified. I’m a republican and will be voting for McCain, but I still have a great deal of respect for Powell and so should everyone else. Also, for the record, I’m not voting for McCain because I think Obama is a terrorist or in any way anti-American; that is just a ridiculous stance to take. People that are anti-American don’t tend to spend 6+ years in government positions representing their fellow Americans. The time and effort it takes to be the kind of person that 1) could actually be elected to office and 2) succeeds in actually getting elected is astounding. The man is being considered for president of the United States of America and you think he’s anti-American? That’s just dumb… This isn’t sports. You don’t just pick a team and hate the other team because they’re the other team. You people need to use that thing god given thing between your ears and stop letting the news and fear mongers tell you what to believe.
Seymore| 10.21.08 @ 10:53PM
Oh and to clarify, I’m voting for McCain because I think he is more capable, more experienced and his policies and positions on key issues (those issues most important to me and the country) are better than Obama’s. That is the only criteria anyone should use when deciding who should serve as president of the US. Anything less than that is really shortchanging the country… This article was stupid.
Rich D| 10.22.08 @ 10:02AM
Palin never was a member of a successionist party, but surely consent of the governed means just that. Obama will take your money and guns. Indeed, he has a team of all the wrong people ready to be put in the right positions.
James Eaton| 10.22.08 @ 11:05AM
Seymore: You can say "the article was stupid," it's a mere opinion and a conclusionary one at that,hence, merely your isolated aseveration, and that, sir, doesn't make it so. You can say you respect Powell, maybe so, your business and I don't care. But don't say what I or anyone else should do with respect to the fellow. His military tenure was yesteryear; what he did by omission to Mr. Libby was yesterday. What have you done lately, General? J.C.Eaton
Cynical Observer| 10.22.08 @ 12:29PM
Interesting how Obama needs father figures to give him authenticity -- Biden, Powell -- because he's a lightweight. A well-spoken and perhaps even well-intended lightweight -- but obviously not an authority figure on his own like McCain.
Seymore| 10.22.08 @ 2:19PM
James, of course my statement regarding the stupidity of this article in no way constitutes a fact, it’s my opinion. I see your point regarding my suggesting that everyone should respect Powell, again it’s my opinion but in retrospect I could have left that out, who am I to tell anyone who they should or shouldn’t respect (though I think that’s what Jeff was trying to accomplish with this article). You suggest that his accomplishments are in the past and therefore not significant and I take issue with that - experience is important in my opinion. We should pay attention and listen to the people that have been there and done that – again my opinion. The real point of my post though was not about Powell or even this article; it was about the reasoning people are using to choose their candidate. I’m disgusted by that minority of people in my own party that continue to use fear and smear as the basis of their political decisions. It is bad for our country, bad for democracy in general, and un-American.
OCPatriot| 10.22.08 @ 2:33PM
SOUR GRAPES, ANYONE?
The fun thing about those who put Powell and his endorsement down for one reason or other is that, if Powell had come out for McCain, he would have been hailed as a leading light of the Republican Party. Think of it that way, and you can't help but realize that such articles and comments are nothing but "sour grapes."
P.S. Ever notice that the schtick is PUTTING PEOPLE DOWN as opposed to pointing out the positives of the alternatives? Are such commentators actually scared, or are they using fear, as George Bush did, to enlist sympathy for their side?
Larry Cahill| 10.22.08 @ 11:05PM
In fact, a lot of thinking people are impressed by what Colin Powell has done. Lets face it: Many, many more people respect Powell's opinion that Jeffrey Lord's, which is precisely why Lord is so evidently bothered by what Powell has done for America in endorsing Obama.
Kevin Dunn| 10.23.08 @ 1:48AM
Colin Powell would still have endorsed Obama if McCain had been a black war-hero and admiral's son and Obama had been completely instead of half white ... Wouldn't he?
Ms. Know| 10.30.08 @ 12:39AM
I don't know why this one General is getting all this attention for endorsing the liberal illuminati. What about the other right-wing Generals who endorsed McCain, do they not have any clout?