The American Spectator

Deborah D| 5.26.09 @ 6:26AM

Thanks for this, Mr. Lord. General Powell is a disappointment, to say the least. Only in an Orwellian world could anyone actually listen to this man and think he and his thinking are the future of the Republican Party. Someone who hailed and voted for the most left-wing president we've ever had hasn't got the sense to lead a conservative party. He got the type of Republican he wanted as our presidential nominee -- John McCain -- and he couldn't even support him. What does that tell you?

John Navratil| 5.26.09 @ 7:26AM

Excellent essay, but how many times does one need to bend over backwards to tout the General's strengths? As one doesn't need to be unpleasant in disagreement, neither is praise necessary for disagreement to be credible. It approached sycophancy.
I recall, with disappointment, Jack Kemp's early decision not to seek the Presidency in 1996. As Dole's running mate he brought conservative bona fides, but I'd have like to see him at the top of the ticket.

Doorgunner| 5.26.09 @ 8:20AM

Here it is, folks! David Mathews descent into madness:

http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/introwk.html

David, who's billy mathews?

Doorgunner| 5.26.09 @ 8:22AM

Speaking of whacky extremism, David, what's this stuff?

http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/introwk.html

And how 'bout that crazy letter Sunnyside Church of Christ?

http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/email/Dave Mathews so-called missionary trip to Yellowstone.htm

David, who's billy? Did he/she forsake you also? Like God? Like the folks at The Oil Drum?

Doorgunner| 5.26.09 @ 8:29AM

Saturday Night Live hasn't had a character as funny as you since Ed Grimley, David.

You're like the beta male Brando:

She: "What are protesting against?"
He:"Whaddaya' got... that I get all histrionic about?"

CraigZ| 5.26.09 @ 8:41AM

Was Colin Powel a great general? I don’t really see the hard evidence for that. I believe he was a competent administrator, both for the Defense and State Departments. But a competent administrator is not necessarily a leader. Powell was the one who counseled George H.W. Bush to end combat operations at a magic “100 hours”. Another 24 hours might have seen the Iraq Republican Guard vanquished, and the history of the 1990s could have been far better for Iraq and the world than it was. Recall also that he was against that first phase of the Iraq war in the first place. That suggests that he did/does not have the strategic sense that a true national leader should have.

Turk| 5.26.09 @ 8:51AM

Mattyouse--oh leftist one--lover of hiss marxlenin et al-------------back trying to smother conservative discourse! Tell us; you're not an individual are you? Also, answer the questions I have posed twice now. Like the last one what did your miserable America hating soul do yesterday? You dont exist do you??

Anthony| 5.26.09 @ 9:01AM

The problem with a phony apostate like Powell is that he can make things up as he goes along to fit his biases, with few, if any, to call him on it. The MSM will give Powell all the cover he needs, just check yesterday's NYT front page, which I saw abandoned on an outdoor table after our town's parade, with narry a word about Memorial Day, but a column dedicated to Powell bravely fighting back both Messrs. Cheney and Limbaugh.
Here's the dirty little secret folks; Powell will never tell us what about McCain's campaign was not compelling enough to support his fellow soldier and quintesential go along moderate, for a radical leftist. The reason is simple; Powell is a closet liberal and part of the Washington power structure. He rode his black Republican label for all it was worth under Reagan, and the Presidents Bush. It propelled this mediocre hack to great heights, but being the good hack that he is, he saw the winds of change with Obama and blew with them. One last thought on this disgrace; the truth is, Powell has the Washington elitist attitude towards Gov. Palin. He looks down on her and people like us, and being the insider that he is, he fears what she represents for the establishement. Change is coming General, but not the change you've been riding with Obama. Hey General, have you apologized to Mr. Libby yet?

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.26.09 @ 9:06AM

“Moderate” Republicans endorse the opposition candidate? Republicans that actually support their own nominee are “extreme?” Has everyone lost his or her collective minds? Powell has been, up till now and as military tradition reflects, silent on to what he actually believes and who he actually supports. His endorsement of Obama was a terrible blunder and while commendable within the context of racial “hope and change” has tethered him to the upcoming disaster. No great loss to the “party of Specter,” the only thing that distinguished him as a “Republican” was his continence as a class warfare target.

Nick| 5.26.09 @ 9:38AM

Never liked or supported Powell. He's pro-abortion. That's what makes him a "moderate". That's how you get the moniker from the democrat MSM. If you're Pro-Life, you're automatically an extremist.

And I served under the man in Operation Desert Storm. In fact, I remember amongst those of us who didn't like our little trip to the desert, we called him Colon Bowel. I won't say what we called Bush 41. We were in our early 20's, after all.

Northern Rebel| 5.26.09 @ 9:48AM

It is obvious why Powell pronounces his first name with a long O.

Mathews: are you praying to a tree, or a bust of Nancy Pelosi (shudder) when you say in EVERY post, that the republican party is dying?

You were probably saying the same thing as the '94 congress was being sworn in.

Be afraid Dave, VERY AFRAID!
(I know you are)

John Schuh| 5.26.09 @ 10:07AM

David Matthews says that Mr. Lord is an old man. He does not know that the same is true of General Powell? But youth is no infalliable sign of openness to new ideas. Take Mr. Obama.

JimE| 5.26.09 @ 10:14AM

Excellent article from Mr. Lord. Thank you for the clarity. And, you were too much the gentleman to point out the additional detail from CraigZ's post.
I tend to agree - I'm not sure how much of an inspirational leader Powell was. As a general & National Security Advisor, I believe he had to have been a pretty fair administrator - and, perhaps followed where the "winds" led him. Once at State though, the he kept up following the "wind." State needs a true leader that will challenge the ideas that deny America's interests in the world. Powell was not that leader.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 10:15AM

The odd thing about Douglas MacArthur is that he was offered the VP spot by Bob Taft in Taft's run against Eisenhower in 1952. MacArthur's ego would not accept a secondary role and rejected that offer.
MacArthur was quite popular in 1952 and his spot on the ticket would have ensured a Taft nomination and very likely a November victory.

In rerospect, this would have given MacArthur the Presidency as Taft died in 1953. Such is the fate of ego and politics.

As for Powell, what bothers me is his lack of foresight as well as hindsight. His inability to look to the past to see the destructive nature of greater government taxation and spending and its effects on people makes him a caricature.
Oh yes, he is loved by the MSM and others who lie prostrate on the altar of Colin Powell. He fails to see that love is not forever in the fickle world of politics.
Powell has no ideas other than co-opt and/or stay the course. He has rejected the Reagan call to portray yourself in bold colors and not in drab pastels. Thus, Powell fails in leadership; the one quality that he is supposedly known for.

Oddly, Powell does not speak to issues he should be most familiar with; the military. His silence to what the Obama Administration is doing via budget cuts is strange and unconscionable.

kbstreet1| 5.26.09 @ 10:25AM

Colin Powell is just a staff officer who got lucky.
The "Powel Docturine" shows how to snatch defeat from an overwhelming victory.
Powell is a populist to Obama' statist.

Jeff| 5.26.09 @ 10:45AM

Powell has made a series of very poor decisions which have damaged our country. During the first Iraq war he convinced GHWB to end the fighting prematurely and leave Saddam in power. This was on a par with the decision not to occupy Germany after WWI. Powell subsequently damaged GWB by hiding the actions of his aides in the Plame affair. Powell is not a person you can trust to make important decisions.

Doctor Right| 5.26.09 @ 10:46AM

Can we please stop pretending that Colin Powell is:

1. A Conservative
2. A reliable Republican
3. Well-versed in economics and politics
4. Loyal to the men who employed him
5. A good Diplomat
6. An able statesmen

Powell is none of the above.

17 years ago, Powell proved he was an able delegator (anyone remember Norman Schwarzkopf?) during the first Gulf War, and he's been riding on that reputation ever since, all the while courting the media and the Washington establishment with his charm, his innate wisdom (sarcasm intended), and the ever-present "Will he run?" titillation that pops-up every four years.

Powell signalled, strongly (in case anyone was listening) of his non-interest in elections in 2000. Colin the Pious is not interested in the gutter-politics of electioneering. He prefers the appointed positions instead, where he's given maximum authority to run his own agenda, even if that agenda conflicts with the agenda of his Boss. This also provides him with ample opporunity to pursue his other two passions, leaking to the New York Times, and amassing a small fortune by traveling the world and giving "motivational" speeches at $300,000 a pop to any organization dumb enough to invite him.

But of course, to criticize Saint Colin is to practice racism. Yet Powell "the Republican" feigns offense at the mere suggestion that his public support of Barack Obama for President (a man whose stated positions are the polar opposite of even Powell's "passionate moderatism") was based on anything other than skin color.

So please...Can we stop pretending about Colin Powell?

Can we philosophically getison this man from the Republican Party?

It is utterly inconceiveable (and logically incoherent) that the Republican Party embrace a man who openly embraces our political adversary, Barack Obama. Powell CANNOT have it both ways; he cannot claim to be a Republican while supporting the most left-wing President in US history.

His pernicious presence is a distraction from the business at hand, mainly, the political defeat of Obama. It's time to stop pretending that we like him, that he's good for the Party, and that we care what he thinks.

It's also time to stop cowering in fear of openly criticizing an African-American politician. Gather your guts, Republicans.

Personally, I'd take Cheney and Limbaugh over 10 Colin Powells any day of the week.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.26.09 @ 10:52AM

"Jeffrey Lord is an old man "

What does this make Joe Biden? Compared to whom I am but a child barely older than Joe's boss...

Rob| 5.26.09 @ 11:04AM

It's always great comedy how guys like Jeff Lord revises history to make Reagan as some sort of conservative diety. Fact is Reagan kept growing government, had exploded deficit spending and signed off on huge tax increases. And you conservatives call THAT conservative?

Siegfried X| 5.26.09 @ 11:51AM

There's no excuse for any conservative to vote for Obama, a far-left Democrat. So Powell can call himself a Republican if he wants, but he certainly isn't a Reagan conservative.

As far as Kemp goes, he was too far towards the center for my liking. However I must admit that Kemp tried to use conservative principles to come up with real world solutions, something which was missing in the Bush administration, and in today's Republican congress.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 11:53AM

Rob,
A couple of points:
1) Reagan held his nose to the Dem controlled Congress' spending in order to implement his idea to destroy the Soviet Union. This was his top priority. I hope you like the results of that priority.

2) If you took Civics, you would know that Congress does the spending not the President. Of course, the MSM and others will give credit to the wrong person.
Remember, as a result of Watergate, a lot of power resided in Congress.
Can you imagine what would have happened to Reagan if he demanded to shut down the government until there was a balanced budget?

3) I 'll admit Reagan wasn't perfect but he was a whole lot better than anyone since.

Reagan was a great leader with great ideas and a great vision. He was a great human being; not a god.

Rob, you remind me of the guy who threw a beautiful naked woman out of his bed because she was eating crackers. You must be related to Bob.

Vaemar| 5.26.09 @ 11:57AM

Colin Powell as a retired senior general must be on a pretty large income. Does he employ an accountant to inimise his taxes?

Alan Brooks| 5.26.09 @ 11:57AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/1900Bryan.jpg

Joe| 5.26.09 @ 12:11PM

Davey, or whatever your true name is, did someone steal your little red wagon when you were a kid? Did the Big bad capitalist make you work too hard? Were you made to listen to the truth from Rush too long? You poor unhappy thing!!! Get a latter and get over it. Because the conservatives who know how best for the country to run are coming back.

J.C.Eaton| 5.26.09 @ 12:23PM

With all due respect to Mr. Lord, I have gotten terminally weary of these endless paeons to the military wizardry of Colin Powell, Gen. U.S.Army[ret]. He did not demonstrate any grand leadership skills in Desert Storm. He was not even in the decision-making loop. In 1986 congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act which took the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs out of the command and control flow and put virtually complete local control in the hands of the so-called CinCs of the various combat and support commands. Norman Schwartzkopf was the CinC for the entire theatre of southwest Asia. He was answerable to George Bush and his SecDef, Mr. Cheney. Colin Powell was irrelevant. As far as his intellectual fawning over Marshal Clauswitz, my estimate is that he read him at the War College just like the rest of us did and to the same end. Whatever Powell is, he ain't no Clauswitz...or Eisenhower for that matter. Finally, what kind of character is it that lets Scooter Libby suffer a unique kind of personal hell, knowing all the while that it was his own aide and protege who was the culprit and stayed silent as a mouse? To ask the question is to answer it. Out here.

Truck Trader| 5.26.09 @ 12:29PM

Awesome! I have read a lot on this topic, but you definitely give it a good vibe. This is a great post. Will be back to read more! Please come visit my site auto dealerships when you got time.

Truck Parts| 5.26.09 @ 12:31PM

I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it :) I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. Please visit my Please visit my blog when you have time Please come visit my site trucks accessories when you got time.

Oldefarte| 5.26.09 @ 1:14PM

General Powell: WE ALL KNEW OF THEM AND WERE FRIENDS WITH BOTH OF THEM; AND FRANKLY GENERAL, YOU'RE NO GEORGE S. PATTON OR DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER!!!!!!

storycipher| 5.26.09 @ 1:16PM

It’s hard to imagine the Republicans not moving toward the center as the Democrats continue their slide toward the left.

Here's an interesting video featuring Powell and some other influential voices. There is some serious soul searching going on out there. :-)

http://www.newsy.com/videos/gop_soul_search

frankg| 5.26.09 @ 1:57PM

Sorry Dave m,
collin powell just blows in the wind, he's a weather vane, more and more people are beginning to realize it. Powell killed his moderate credentials when HE said: "Americans do want to pay taxes for services….Americans are looking for more government in their lives, not less" and voted for the far left obama. Americans are beginning to realize that big government is going beyond its mandates to provide for the basic services, and plunder and tax more with accelerated frequency to pay its special interests (the host of unions), kickback to political allies (ACORN), satisfy its personal ambitions(spiking congressional investigations), and pursue policies regulated to the museums of failure.
Now go ask the hard left liberal radicals why they don't allow moderate "blue dog" democrats to set major policy and pass laws start to finish in this current administration.

Mark| 5.26.09 @ 2:04PM

This is a multi-revised version of "Moderate Manifesto" last updated 05/10/09.

While Bush was in office, conservatives ran the country.
While Obama is in office, progressives will run the country.
The majority of Americans will suffer because of the conservative and progressive minorities.

Moderates need to militantly unite against the conservative and progressive.
Moderates on radio and TV should begin to spring up in cities all across the U.S.
The show's rallying cry might be "We will provide ALL sides not just the progressive or conservative side" or "Some open-mindedness is needed".
These shows would provide all different viewpoints in a concise manner so listeners can make up their minds.

I was in high school in the early 1970's when unrest over the Vietnam War was rising.
The best thing that occurred during that time was a high level of personal political activism;
personal political creativity was encouraged; unfortunately, some political traditions suffered.
Independent parties became influential because the traditional parties failed to represent a majority of Americans.
Numerous groups with new ideologies arrived on the scene; each ideology was researched and approved by the group;
it was a time of enlightenment; there was less prejudice.

Today is not a time of enlightenment or personal political freedom.
It is a time of retribution for some; a time of change.
Today, personal political activism coincides with political party ideology;
personal political creativity coincides with political party ideology.

Some proclaim the country's "fairness" by being unfair; few are rewarded at the expense of many.
I will comment on the mortgage meltdown later.
Closed-minded thinking is proclaimed as open-minded thinking.

We let conservative and progressive minorities do the political thinking for us.
We ask the radio host what we should think! We ask the public school teacher or professor what we should think!
We even ask the dopey comedian what we should think!
There is no one, including myself, who is smart enough to tell anyone what to think.

If you are a moderate, there is usually no clear cut answer for any political issue at first;
you definitely need to do some research.

Right now, there aren't enough facts to prove the existence of global warming, yet many Americans demand action to stop global warming now.
Right now, many Americans want to blame the mortgage meltdown entirely on corporate America;
they haven't comprehended the equal culpability of the courts and Congress.
We need to understand how the mortgage meltdown occurred so it doesn't happen again.

WE NEED A LOT MORE FACTS AND A LOT LESS IDEOLOGIES.

Republicans and Democrats refer to political organizations.
Conservatives and progressives refer to political ideologies.

The definitions of Republicans and Democrats have been blurred by conservatives and progressives.
Conservatives try to "sabotage" the progressive movement and "purify" the Republican Party by forcing "unpure conservatives" to leave the Republican Party.
Examples are: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Meghan McCain (John McCain's daughter).
Conservatives tried to get John McCain removed from the Republican Party.
I'm just musing: If I were in John McCain's family, I may not like the Republican Party much right now; I probably don't like conservatives much right now.
Progressives try to "sabotage" the conservative movement and "purify" the Democratic Party by forcing "unpure progressives" to leave the Democratic Party.
Examples are: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (and possibly Meghan McCain).

Let's define conservatives and progressives first.
Conservatives and progressives have to keep track of many more ideologies than Democrats and Republicans
because it seems they try to "micromanage" political thought.
That's probably why progressives and conservatives always try to simplify things into absolute rights and wrongs.
Their political actions happen quickly, but examinations of facts from all points of view rarely happen.
This also prohibits any discussions, any compromises, any solving of political problems if you will allow me to say.

Fiscal policy is how a government spends money. Social policy is how a government deals with social issues.
Conservative means having government do as little as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Liberal (progressive) means having government do as much as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Moderate is between conservative and progressive.

Conservatives are fiscally and socially (everything) conservative. Progressives are fiscally and socially (everything) liberal.
Progressives use the term progressive instead of liberal because, in politics, the term liberal is generally looked down upon.
That should change.

I would condense the conservative ideology into this: competition makes things better;
the conservative believes the government should forcefully promote competition.
The conservative also believes in a higher power which forces the competitor to compete "ethically".
Most of the U.S. government was based on competition.
The 3 branches of government were based on competition.
Our free market economy was based on competition.

That's probably why conservatives point to most of our founding fathers when they try to justify their conservative beliefs.
Unfortunately, conservatives do not spotlight famous founding fathers like Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and others because Franklin, Hamilton, and others publicly believed in cooperation as well as competition;

I would condense the progressive ideology into this: equality makes things better;
the progressive believes the government should forcefully promote equality; "fairness".
The state is the higher power; "FAIRNESS" IS BASED ON PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.
The "fairness doctrine" policies already in place in government and public schools, or the fairness doctrine proposal for broadcast media are examples
of a progressive ideology.
At first, government mandates choices, but in the end government defines what is right and wrong; government defines what makes things equal.
Government eventually stymies discussion. In fact, certain thought is punishable by government.

While at an elementary school a few years ago for a school board election, I was inundated with "Don't let anyone bully you" or "Report bullies to a teacher" signs in the halls of the school.
I thought it ironic that those same anti-bullying, forced equality, school knows what "fairness" is tactics bullied students when they were taught about an imminent global warming disaster if CO2 wasn't slowed.
I will explore global warming in more detail later.

When the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, allowing each citizen to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was one of the reasons for creating the tiny U.S. nation.
Liberty means being free to do what you want when you want.
(I've never been able to distinguish liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you have a clue, let me know please.) I digress.
If there were disagreements between members of the tiny U.S. and they could not find satisfaction, all they had to do was pick up and move; the wilderness was vast; they just had to fight Indians.
Today, if there is no satisfaction, there isn't the same vast wilderness in which to move.

Today, conservatives who have disowned the federal government, for example, call for state's rights;
they currently choose this method of demonstration against the federal government because many base conservative ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
progressives who have disowned the federal government, for example, have sanctuary cities and the courts;
they currently choose this more active method of demonstration against the federal government because few base progressive ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
when Obama's progressive administration takes effect, progressives will have less active demonstrations against the federal government;
conservatives will have more active demonstrations against the federal government.
The "righteous" progressive and conservative will always seem inclined to disobey laws because few of their wishes become reality.

When a citizen of the U.S. says they have a personal need for the government to force competition on everyone and another citizen of the U.S. has a personal need for the government to force equality on everyone,
how can both citizens of the U.S. achieve liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
It is impossible.
To which wilderness will the one who doesn't receive satisfaction flee?
This is the impasse that exists between conservatives and progressives.
Unfortunately for all Americans, the Republican Party is dominated by conservatives; the Democratic Party is dominated by progressives.

Progressives and conservatives believe Congressmen and Congresswomen should do what is "morally right" and not necessarily represent the wishes of the American people;
progressives and conservatives desire this transcendence of politics.

Progressive and conservative ideologies are not pertinent to the moderate.
A moderate realizes the Republican (conservative) and Democratic (progressive) bases are currently radical.
A moderate realizes the Republican and Democratic bases are currently the minorities.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally conservative.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially conservative.
Moderates do NOT have ideologies that deal strictly with spending policies or social issues like
conservatives or progressives, so they cannot be categorized with fiscal or social labels.
It would be like trying to determine the make and model of a snowflake.
PERTINENT AND CURRENT LABELS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO CORRECTLY CATEGORIZE MODERATES BECAUSE MANY MORE VOTERS DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS MODERATE.
What should those labels be?

To the progressive or conservative "purist", the moderate may SEEM to combine traits of the conservative and progressive;
the "purist" could consider it "heresy"; some call it "wishy-washyness".
The progressive or conservative misunderstands the moderate because the goals of the moderate are different.
The moderate disagrees with the federal government just as frequently and vigorously as progressives and conservatives;
when the moderate disagrees with the federal government and is not satisfied, they try to "move to the wilderness" just like progressives and conservatives.
I write a manifesto to explain my fairly mainstream-held moderate Republican beliefs when some say we don't exist.
I campaigned to get John McCain nominated for president because he represents more of my ideologies.

Devising a satisfactory platform(s) for the many types of moderates could be arduous and time consuming.
Let me give you my moderate example:
I HAVE ONE SPECIAL INTEREST AND ONE IDEOLOGY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE SPECIAL INTEREST. DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE IDEOLOGY.
I identify more with traditional beliefs in the Republican Party.
Most of the time, I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I am a moderate Republican.
I voted for McCain but didn't care for Palin.

I believe in gay rights. I believe the less big government intrudes the better.
Neither belief supersedes the other. I agree with the decision to allow gays to legally join using a civil union.
I disagree with the progressive Supreme Court of Iowa that recently legalized gay marriage.
Here are some analogies: can I sue for civil rights damages because, being a man, I can't use the women's public restroom?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if I'm not athletic enough to play on the school's sports team?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if my boss doesn't give me a raise or promotion?
Which civil right is being violated when gays don't have the access to marriage?

Iowans care about civil rights violations.
In my opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court is sympathetic to the gay cause and wants to give gays access to marriage because gays and gay advocates want marriage.
In my opinion, this helps to show the Iowa Supreme Court is progressive.
For once, I'd like an open-minded discussion on gay marriage;
you'd have to excuse conservatives and progressives because, in my opinion, BOTH GROUPS violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Big government changing the definition of marriage is an unnecessary intrusion.
I believe gay marriage is the Supreme Court of Iowa's way of saying big government is the only legitimate setter of standards.
Iowa's gay marriage decision is a violation of the First Amendment; it is a violation of the "separation of ideology and state".

Progressive ideologies cause some Americans to view the insolvency of GM as an example of the failure, solely, of corporate leadership.
In actuality, the insolvency of GM is an example of the failure of corporate leadership, government leadership, and to a lesser extent the automotive labor unions.

IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTED TO SAVING GM?
So far, the Obama administration has leaned on GM's corporate leadership and the leadership of GM's lenders.
Will the Obama administration lean on the government's leadership and, for example, demand the government dissolve CAFE standards
and/or lean on the auto unions' leadership?
The latter two are major special interests of the Obama administration.

America simply can't afford the MASSIVE global warming expenses already incurred by the government unless a global warming disaster is imminent.
GM can't afford the CAFE standards Congress has placed on the company because of global warming concerns. GM can't
produce their most popular selling vehicles, trucks, because of CAFE standards.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 SATURATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE WILL WARM THE EARTH CAUSING MASSIVE FLOODS.
That should be said every day. Believers in CO2's culpability in global warming say that daily; they say the debate is closed because of the "facts".
Believers in global warming use conjecture and the ideology of environmentalists.
THE IDEOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS IS: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE AGAINST ANY CHANGE IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Here's more: CO2 is about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases (382 Parts Per Million in the atmosphere in 2006).
Methane's concentration in the atmosphere (another greenhouse gas) was about 1,788 Parts Per Billion in 2008 and has increased by 151% since 1750.
A methane molecule is twenty-three times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than a CO2 molecule.

If we truly want to reduce greenhouse gases, we would need to lessen water evaporation; about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases.

NATURE PRODUCES ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASES.

By far, the largest amount of greenhouse gases escapes into the atmosphere on a cloudy day.
Over 30 years ago, when Creedence Clearwater Revival sang the song
"Who'll Stop the Rain?", were they actually singing about global warming?
Should we be able to deduct the cost of a dehumidifier, a "global warming preventer", on our federal taxes?
A sure way to slow water evaporation would be to "fill in" bodies of water.

WE MUST HARNESS NATURE TO SLOW DOWN THE BUILD UP OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

If environmentalists are concerned with lowering greenhouse gases, why have they chosen to target CO2, about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?
For a higher probability in slowing the amount of greenhouse gases, I suggest we stop the experiments
which limit CO2 now. - Before the earth turns into a charcoal briquette.
We should begin experiments to limit water vapor. - If global warming is imminent;
if we believe a build up of greenhouse gases causes global warming; if global warming exists.
(OK, when you recognize rhetoric, please realize I can't help it sometimes and excuse me).

Logically thinking, ideologues concerned with the lessening of greenhouse gases to stop global warming will eventually demand most greenhouse gases be reduced from the atmosphere;
those greenhouse gases could include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.
MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE PERPETUAL.
We send CO2 into the atmosphere every time we exhale; we will be wearing "gas masks" to trap the escaping CO2.
It is just as difficult to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as it is methane; neither is easy.

The one and ONLY fact environmentalists who believe in global warming caused by the buildup of the greenhouse gas CO2 have is:
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have dramatically increased (280 PPM in the late 1700's to 382 PPM in 2006).

It seems logical that water vapor, about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, must be quickly and sufficiently lessened to prevent the imminent "global warming disaster".
Environmentalists are against any change in the natural environment; that is undeniable.
The lessening of water vapor would be a change in the natural environment.

The burning of fossil fuels sends CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have greatly increased.
It seems more likely that ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, an ideology apart from global warming.
In my opinion, their ideology describes a mandatory environmental "clean-up" operation to remove the excess man-made CO2 "pollution".

Pointing out the build up of CO2 and the need to clean excess CO2 is OK.
Describing a world destruction - global warming scenario to scare people into cleaning up the excess CO2 is lawlessness!
The cost is lawlessness! The oppressiveness of global warming laws is lawlessness!

The issue is, should the government spend MASSIVE amounts of money to adjust CO2 levels in the atmosphere
to an arbitrary standard like, for example, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1980?
This could satisfy environmentalists because the LEVEL OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE WOULD BE RETURNED TO A MORE PRISTINE STATE...
Environmentalism has already been mentioned as one of the powerful special interests of the Obama administration...

Combating global warming by slowing the greenhouse gas, CO2, is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world.
Global warming caused by man is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world; up there with the earth being flat
or the center of the universe, or prohibiting baseball players from lifting weights because it reduced flexibility.
Combating global warming by slowing greenhouse gases is a theory; global warming is a theory.

The only special interest or ideology politicians should have is: the people of the U.S., and what is best for them.
As John McCain's campaign slogan said: Country First (not ideology first).
More and more politicians have become confused. They say they are for the American people, yet they allow some "anti-American people" ideologies to form their policies.
You probably recognize some "anti-American people" ideologies the Obama administration believes in.
During the election of 2008, McCain strayed away from his Country First ideology and used an "anti-American people" ideology when he refused to confront
Obama's extremely liberal record and influences.

With conservatives and progressives, it is their ideologies that are too important to fail.
A progressive thinks everyone should own a home; that is good for the country.
A conservative thinks a soaring stock market, albeit unregulated, is good for the country.
Actually, the progressive's everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology focuses on the government redistributing wealth for the sake of fairness.
Actually, the conservative's high-flying-stock market ideology focuses on stimulating small businesses, which creates new jobs,
which raises the stock market for the sake of fairness.

From at least 2004 on, these two ideologies fed off each other.

The everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology sent the stock market to new heights.
This ideology also radically altered a major self-regulation of the free market: supply equals demand.
By federal law, and with an interest in the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology, both supply and demand for home mortgages were dramatically increased.

Mortgage investors were forced to accept mortgage paper for its face value.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS NOT WORTH THE MORTGAGE, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to ensure the face value of the mortgage even though great amounts of debt were added to do so.
Worthless, defaulted mortgages became more numerous.
The mortgage investor's balance sheet became uncertain.

By federal law instituted in 1993, because of a court ruling that it was discrimination to refuse a mortgage based on the inability to pay or because of low down payment,
the federal government (by at least 2004) began to take homes away from mortgage investors and gave them to personal home owners.

Currently, the federal government pays personal home mortgages in arrears to make the "house gift" permanent.
THIS PAYMENT OF PERSONAL HOME MORTGAGES IN ARREARS WILL BE PERPETUAL.
It will become permanent entitlement spending; more federal spending we just can't afford.

Conversely, the high-flying-stock market ideology sent the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology to new heights.
Bonuses and commissions were earned for the number of mortgages written.

The economy was booming (any administration would have loved that) because many jobs were created, because homes were being built for people who didn't have much invested in them.
There was an overall false feeling of a robust economy and an overall false high assessment of the value of personal homes.

Progressives and conservatives loved it; they both got fat;
unfortunately for Americans, progressives and conservatives forgot to watch out for their one legitimate special interest; Americans.

THE COURTS AND CONGRESS RADICALLY WEAKENED THE MAJOR SELF-REGULATION OF THE FREE MARKET MORTGAGE INDUSTRY AND EARNERS OF MONEY IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED REGULATION.
THE RESULT WAS THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN; one of the biggest scams in American history.

Next time, before instituting a law that undermines capitalism (as if capitalism doesn't do a good job "undermining" itself sometimes),
we should ask economists how the law would affect the economy before it becomes law.
If the law would adversely affect the economy, the American people, we should think hard before making it law.

Our economy is not invincible. An important thing to learn from the mortgage meltdown is that our economy can be brought down even after the Fed is involved;
even after massive stimulus packages are spent.
Laws will always be needed to stop predatory practices in capitalism.
Laws will always be needed to stop predatory practices in socialism.

LAWS STATING THAT MORTGAGES SHOULD BE WRITTEN REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY OR AMOUNT INVESTED SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.. NOW.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This is not ideology. This is fact; proven since 2008.

Those who participated in a TEA party on April 15 because they believe their taxes shouldn't be raised:
Where will the government get the money to pay its gigantic debts?
Devaluation of money caused by excess printing of money won't allow the government to print money forever.
The government will continue to borrow against other programs like Social Security, or the bridges and roads fund (if you live in Minnesota).
The government will continue to borrow from other countries.
The government will continue to try to ensure its debt against itself (FDIC, Fannie, Freddie).
The government will continue to kick the "debt payment can" down the road to future generations.
All levels of government will try to raise taxes.
A big question for all Americans: are you willing to accept higher taxes to enjoy today's government benefits,
or will you accept less government benefits in the future so your taxes will stay the same? I don't foresee taxes dropping any time soon.
Maybe, like in Des Moines, someone can get creative and, for example, propose another casino that would be taxed by the government.

Those who participated in a TEA party on April 15 because they believe the government shouldn't
spend to get our economy moving: OK, I struggled with that; I quickly realized that rapidly rising unemployment isn't good for the American people;
I eventually realized a short burst of stimulus with the desire to pay back the stimulus debt was better for the American people;
also, chances for election decrease if the candidate or party appears to be apathetic.

Here is a dilemma I recently faced:
do I agree on stimulus packages that could benefit current America with a stimulated economy even though they would penalize future America with great debt?;
do I NOT CHOOSE TO AGREE on stimulus packages that penalize future America with great debt even though they could benefit current America with a stimulated economy?
There is a possibility that a prolonged and destabilized economy could destabilize America;
logically thinking, there would be no future America if there were no current America.
There is a great possibility that America could lose autonomy if we accumulate great amounts of debt and could never pay it back.
The responsibility of paying America's unpaid debts would go to a more fiscally sound organization; some traditional freedoms would go as well.
Chrysler, GM, and some banks as examples; California is a potential example.
To benefit both current and future America, we should attempt to stimulate the economy with as little "debt damage" as possible.
Spend as little as needed to stimulate the economy as fast as possible. Shut off the stimulus spending as soon as possible.
This will help to preserve the independence of America.

Should we aspire to the same level of production in the economy as the Bush administration's "economy on steroids"?
Would we be setting ourselves up for another economic "crash" if we do?; would there be too much unemployment if we don't?

For the good of the American people, the state of our economy demands I temporarily allow the government to be fiscally liberal in some areas.
I agreed with the Bush administration's 700 billion dollar stimulus package.
I disagree with the Obama administration's nebulous and expensive (in the trillions) stimulus package which sets government up to be involved in big business
for many years to come. Is there a consensus to make the ideological "change", the MASSIVELY increased level of government intervention in the economy permanent?
Who voted for that change?
Don't politicians care about future America? They certainly have placed a lot of debt on future America.
I could agree with an alternative stimulus package that did not control big business as much, spent less money, spent it quicker, and did not involve as many political projects.
And stimulated the economy....

For the good of the American people, and as soon as possible, big business must take over much more of the spending.
Government should slow down spending when big business is back on its feet and unemployment subsides.
It will be time to balance the budget once the government's spending spree caused by the CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS ENDS.
The government should try to pay down some of the principal of its debt.
This decision to slow down federal spending will probably be forced on the Obama administration.
A question to ask Obama's administration: under which conditions, and how soon, do you foresee a slow down of federal spending?

Private individuals and big business must be more philanthropic.
Big business must create more jobs NOW.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES BIG BUSINESS MADE WAS LETTING HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES LAPSE.
BUSINESSES MUST PAY FOR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR THEM or suffer through a government-run health care program.
Under controlled circumstances, the government, with some help from big business when they pay unemployment insurance, can handle health care coverage for the percent of the population that is unemployed.
Currently, the federal government cannot handle health care coverage for the percent of the population that is without health care coverage.
Of course, we must always try to find ways of lowering health care costs.

The biggest secret held by government-run health care enthusiasts is: the dramatic increase in those uninsured for health care is caused mainly by those who are not citizens of the U.S.,
(employers eliminating health care coverage for some employees who work for them second) and the willingness, the cost, of government paying for all their health care.
I am for the U.S. having restrictions on U.S. citizenship because of health care costs to all Americans.
The U.S. must be able to control the costs by controlling the flow.

Because of the tremendous health care costs already incurred by some benevolent states and all U.S. citizens, the U.S. must rethink its willingness to pay for all the health care for those who are not U.S. citizens;
I don't think the federal government can handle ANOTHER.... MASSIVE.... spending program that would be government-run health care.

Pro government-run health care politicians: You want to ask the U.S., you want to ask ME to take on the responsibility of California's MASSIVE health care debt?
In my opinion, government-run health care is urgently needed because of California's imminent payment responsibilities.
California will be bankrupt by February, 2010.
Standards and Poor's is downgrading the rating of California's bonds.

Much more data on government-run health care is needed; other countries have huge debts from their government-run health care.
The U.S. doesn't need to be pressured.

Would a government-run health care system do a better job than California's politicians of controlling California's MASSIVE
health care costs?
Possibly, but that would excuse California's benevolent health care spending, and the benevolence could continue.

Right now, the U.S. doesn't need a government-run health care system.
Big business must take more responsibility, big government must be more fiscally conservative, unemployment must be lower, and health care savings must be found.
IF ANY OF THE FOUR THINGS I JUST MENTIONED ARE NOT ACCOMPLISHED, POLITICS 101 ALLOWS ME TO SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT WE WILL HAVE GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.
(Have I mentioned something about my shameful inclination for rhetoric at times)?

Right now, California needs a bailout and a much more conservative fiscal policy.
Sacramento politicians are not in control of the state's debt;
GOPs in Sacramento refuse to go along with tax increase proposals for "needed" programs; dems in Sacramento refuse to cut "benevolent" spending.
Maybe California can build another casino and tax it.

How many California politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer - Two. One to hold the bulb and one to spin the ladder around.
SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES CALIFORNIA IMMINENTLY FACES ARE CAUSED BY UNCOMPROMISING STRUGGLES BETWEEN PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES;
it's a microcosm of the country.

I've intentionally stirred things up to show how difficult it will be to unite moderates.
Let's begin, now, to use conciliation, cooperation, and compromise, all those terms that progressives
and conservatives disdain, to unite moderates and save (California) - America before it's too late.
Please, somebody respond. We don't need any more radical and destructive minority rule.

Mark Fruehling
Des Moines, Iowa USA
05/23/09

Troy Riser| 5.26.09 @ 2:18PM

Marvelously insightful analysis, Mr. Lord, articulating many of General Powell's political shortcomings. I think, though, you are far kinder to the General than I would ever be. For one thing, no Republican worthy of the name would ever vote for a man as manifestly left-leaning as Barack Obama. Thus, whenever I think of Powell, I tend to categorize him in my mind with other self-identifying GOP moderates such as (Christopher) Buckley, Parker, Brooks, et al. General Powell's motivations for supporting Obama were perhaps different in kind from those who so much detested Sarah Palin, but the result was the same. I also remember Powell's handling of the Valerie Plame affair, his willingness to sacrifice VP Cheney's aide Libby to protect one of his own. So is Powell a good guy? Not in my view. General Powell strikes me as more McClellan than MacArthur.

Doctor Right| 5.26.09 @ 2:21PM

WTH was that???

Mark...NO ONE will read that absurdly voluminous post.

Please...Adjsut your tin-foil hat and take your meds.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.26.09 @ 2:33PM

4,949 words - 14 single spaced pages = 0

rockmom| 5.26.09 @ 3:04PM

I am a contemporary of Jeff Lord's. We are about 5 years older than the current President of the United States, and younger than Bill and Hillary Clinton.

El Rey| 5.26.09 @ 3:21PM

Collin Powell - -the old affirmative action general and Sec. of State., the man skilled in back-stabbing and getting appointments based on his race.

Powell could not control his tribal instincts in 2008 when he endorsed the radical B. Hussein Obama for president.

The facts are clear: Powell acts more like a hatefilled closet racist than he does even a mushy RINO.

Jeff Nordlander| 5.26.09 @ 3:30PM

El Rey: "The facts are clear: Powell acts more like a hatefilled closet racist that he does even a mushy RINO". ARE YOU KIDDING?. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

"Did he deliberately lie to the United Nations about the presence of weapons of mass destruction while Secretary of State? No again. He -- like nearly everyone else of any consequence -- believed they were there and that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the U.S. and world peace." There were many people of "consequence" who did not believe this. The information was out there. It was ignored.

Gill O'Teen| 5.26.09 @ 3:45PM

I see our favourite liberal troll is using the only debating technique he knows, ad hominem attacks. A bit short on facts, eh?

Colon Bowel. Ha! ha! Excellent example of misspelling names to promote sarcasm.

The person referenced as Colon Bowel is to Conservatism what Lucifer is to God. To bring it more down to earth, think of Benedict Arnold. If the Republican party thinks this betrayer has a place at its table, I won't let the door hit me on my way out.

Northern Rebel| 5.26.09 @ 3:57PM

MARK:
Are you so conceited, that you think anyone read past the first paragraph of your diatribe?
STFU!

Linda B.| 5.26.09 @ 4:02PM

Colin Powell is no longer a Republican. He openly supported Obama over his own party. He tells Republicans to move to the center and for what reason...They will not be able to define themselves so voters will truly know what makes them different from the Democratic party and that plays right into the Democrats hands. The Republicans need to appeal to all people by advocating a return to Common Sense and to the Principles of the Founding Fathers - a return to the Constitution. If this does not happen I don't think there will be a Republican Party. Right now the Independents have been acquiring more voters than either group. This is very telling.

Pat| 5.26.09 @ 4:04PM

Amusing, Powell says: Americans want more government in their lives. Fighting words for some conservatives but obviously true based on the election results. Obama made no secret about his intentions, Americans were going to get more government if he was elected, lots more.

Beating up Powell rhetorically won't change anything, conservatives are in the minority among Americans. And contrary to conservative catechism, the majority of Americans aren't secretly conservative in their thoughts or beliefs. And there won't be this sudden revival of conservative doctrine or support for conservative principles .

While it's true that more and more Americans will become unhappy with Obama, anyone reading the entrails of the sacrificial beast shouldn't gloat about some mythical conservative revival to come.

Conservatives tend to misinterpret America's response to Obama's actions - what Americans will resent is that they as individuals didn't get all they were promised - that Obama, he lied, where's my piece of the action?

To regain political power and the wealth and perks that accompany power, the Republicans will pretend to be half-blood Democrats; it's what Americans want from Republicans, they're the only available cure for too much Obama.

Instead of genuflections to a remote American past and its faded glories, why can't conservatives be up front in their principles? If you don't want your pockets picked to pay off the lazy and inept among the citizenry, try saying that loudly, clearly and often. Being a minority voice isn't all bad, but being a group of sore losers mouthing worn out platitudes won't buy conservatives anything but contempt.

DougN| 5.26.09 @ 4:06PM

David:
Is something wrong? In your juvenile rants today, you haven't used your trademarked catchphrase "politically irrelevant extremist minority." (TM & copyright David Mathews)

You are just silly.

Louis Jenkins| 5.26.09 @ 4:17PM

"Americans do want to pay taxes for services….Americans are looking for more government in their lives, not less."

We do? California voters have disproven that theory and if that's the case what is its underlying meaning?

"I know ... I have finally figured it out ... Jeffrey Lord is a senile old man. Jeffrey Lord is still talking to Ronald Reagan as if he still existed..."

Our illustrious secretary of state publicly admitted several years ago of having talks with Mrs. Delanor Roosevelt.

Can't figure out why Powell supported Obama over McCain, all in all, McCain spent more time left of the aisle than Obama ever spent in the Senate.

Gill O'Teen| 5.26.09 @ 4:33PM

Exactly what in my previous post is racist? Why is it that only the obumorrhoids scream "racism" whenever they encounter an argument they find puzzling. Nothing written by their representative in this thread refutes my comparison of powell to known traitors. Clearly he rejected his perfect RINO in order to support a commie community organizer. By so doing, powell proved beyond any doubt that he is not even a republicoin. I will not support any political party which bases its views on those of this betrayer.

JHarp| 5.26.09 @ 5:18PM

Matthews is a real scumbag. Only a piece of human garbage would allude to the Alzheimer's disease that so painfully afflicted Ronald Reagan at the end of his life. What a prick. I hope you meet a fast-moving semi head-on, vicious liberal troll.

Angel| 5.26.09 @ 5:36PM

Colin Bowel? OMG! Sorry, but I think that's hilarious.

Smitty| 5.26.09 @ 5:38PM

Not only is Powell NOT a Republican--he's a socialist who supports redistribution of wealth. Damn, what a dim bulb.

PCP Smoker| 5.26.09 @ 5:38PM

Good piece. Lindsey is a good example but a more contemporary and accurate example, I think, is W's administration.

Murphy| 5.26.09 @ 5:40PM

I'm grateful that Mr Lord can make his criticisms of Powell without calling him a "cretin," as Hillyer did this weekend.

See "conservatives"?

It is possible to disagree with someone without personal attack and vilification.

Mazzuchelli| 5.26.09 @ 5:44PM

Good article and some terrific follow-up commentary. It is indeed true that if the good general really wanted a centrist Republican party, he would have backed McCain.

Mattled| 5.26.09 @ 6:00PM

JHarp,

DM has already been hit by a fast-moving semi head on. As a matter of fact, I think all liberals have been hit by a fast-moving semi head-on.

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 6:24PM

Murphy/Jeremiah, you called our CIA agents and soldiers child rapists on AmSpec Blog this weekend, and you're still whining that Quin called Powell a cretin? Dope.

Mattled| 5.26.09 @ 6:46PM

ruth,

Liberals are still angry because of OTS---One Term Syndrome. As the Messaniah gets his A** handed to him by a gnome in N. Korea, he will hand over the decision making to the U.N.

Let's see, how did N. Korea get nuclear technology? Could it have been the "brilliant" Madeline Not-So-Bright sending Jimmy Carter over to "negotiate"?

Why, I believe that's it! That and a basketball. Wow, what brainiacs.

Jimmy went over and negotiated not one, but two (2)---(I use numbers for liberals who can't comprehend things spelled out) nuclear reactors in exchange for a promise. How'd that work out (LOL)?

Where's Jimmy the Earl now? NOW, Obambi gets the fruit of Jimmy's labor---how about them apples? Why, it could be that the one and only loser-in-chief has produced another loser-in-chief.

How prophetic. Books will be written about this historic event----liberal undoes another liberals presidency, er reign, er dictatorship.

Hey, how about giving the gargoyle an iPod? Complete with videos of all the apologies over the last 4 months by our Dear Leader?

Let Obambi bore Kim Jong Il to death.

That might work better than 2 nuclear reactors and a basketball.

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 6:55PM

Mattled--you're funny! Kim is the gargoyle? LOL!

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 6:57PM

What's with that Mark dude? Good Lord.

WilliamInWien| 5.26.09 @ 7:00PM

Is it not possible to state your case in one submission and then, possibly, a follow-up? General Colin addressed a joint National War College/Industrial College of the Armed Forces during the 1992/1993 academic year. A true patriot and commissioned officer stood up in front of his peers and expressed his dismay and fundamental disagreement with Clinton's policy about gays in the military. General Colin dismissed this career officer with obvious religious values in a short, terse sentence that instructed this officer to either go along with the new policy or resign your commission. There was no attempt by the General to explain the policy or offer the officer a reason for the new policy. At that point, I realized the General was an emerging politician concerned with going along to get along. And he did, get along up to the SecState level and even consideration for a presidential nomination. It is too bad that it is not true that old soldiers never die, they just fade away.

ruth| 5.26.09 @ 7:03PM

Doorgunner: D. Mathews is a beta male. Ha ha ha!!

dcd| 5.26.09 @ 7:24PM

Republicans need to get about half the moderates and democrates need to get about two thirds.
Past couple of elections the moderates have gone liberal, can the the republicans give any reason for moderates to do otherwis? What have you got to offer, remeber moderates are by definition not the base so appealing to them as if they were proably won't work.

demographic breakdown: 30%conservative, 20%liberal, 50%moderate (statistic obtained from weekly standard).

Mattled| 5.26.09 @ 7:35PM

dcd,

The moderates have not gone liberal, they voted for the Democrat because said Democrat ran as a ---get ready---conservative.

Look at Webb and other so-called Blue-Dogs from 06 and 08. The democrats ran a fiscal policy, gun rights, pro-life campaign while the Republican ran as a ----moderate.

Even Obama ran as a conservative claiming a tax cut for 95% of the nation (notice I use nation, because non-taxpayers get a check) . That was his #1 platform. He ran like Reagan, being compared to Reagan, all the while liberals decrying that Reaganism is dead---go figure.

Moderates don't get their news from Weekly Standard, WSJ, or even MSNBC and CNN. They get it from their trusted local paper and local TV news. These local outlets follow the NYT and AP.

dcd| 5.26.09 @ 7:44PM

Republicans will still need to off the moderates something.
Democrats offered liberalism with some conservatism thrown in to get the moderates. It worked.
Can the republicans make a counter offer or is the entire campaign plan going to be "I hope they screw up worse than we do."

Jeffrey Lord| 5.26.09 @ 7:55PM

rockmom...

"I am a contemporary of Jeff Lord's. We are about 5 years older than the current President of the United States, and younger than Bill and Hillary Clinton."

You know what DM's problem is? He's discovered there are already people out there younger than he is. Uh-oh.

Mattled| 5.26.09 @ 8:01PM

Mr. Lord,

Thanks for checking in with us die-hard posters.

The media Mr. Lord, what do we do with the media?

I know they are slowly going down, but we need a media plan to get the message out.

Dudley| 5.26.09 @ 8:24PM

Wow, it must be SO FRUSTRATING for you Conservative Right-Wingers... going down in flames at the midterm elections, self-destructing and losing the presidency, and now your most sane members are beginning to jump ship. If you think the conservative "base" of the GOP can get anyone elected, you're crazier than you sound. The Republican Party is in total meltdown. If it has any hope of surviving it must try to hang on to it's more moderate center. The problem is, Dems are beating the moderate GOPers. So now we're stuck with the most radical, fire-breathing, tunnel-visioned, frustrated, hate-filled wing-nuts of the party (kinda like you conservative posters here)... And for the record, Repubs armed Sadam Hussein, Repubs armed Osama Bin Laden, Repubs armed the Somalie warlords, your failed policies destroyed the world economy and for what? A few hundred bucks in taxes every year? Was it worth it, the price of a few six-packs a week, to f**ck up the whole world? And now you rant and rave because you are impotent and POWERLESS... thank God. I hope you all eat other alive and leave the rest of us to try and clean up your mess. You're pitiful, unpatriotic, racist and full of hate -- don't think it isn't obvious, it's SO obvious. Go ahead, drive the bus off the cliff, and good riddance.

Smitty| 5.26.09 @ 8:46PM

Dudely, chill out, dude. Your fascist liberals are in TOTAL control now. No need to whine and moan--enjoy. You've got what you want, loser--let's see how you incompetent morons handle things during the next four years. Hopefully, you azzhats won't get us nuked in the meantime.

JHarp| 5.26.09 @ 9:06PM

Dudley, sincerely hope you meet up with a fast moving semi head on. Moron.

Thom| 5.26.09 @ 9:09PM

You know Benedict Arnold supposedly betrayed the colonists because he was so brilliant that no one would pay him his proper due and stroke his ego to his liking. What makes a man like that betray his brothers in arms is anyone’s guess. I’ve often wondered if he considered sniping at the colonists from a safe venue by advising them how to win after he switched sides? General Powell strikes me as the same kind of man, one needing a very high level of maintenance to keep him in character. Calling him a limousine liberal would be an understatement. What disturbs me the most about the man is not that he openly endorsed and voted for what he considers to be his “blood brother” for President but his open disdain for any concept of honor and respect of traditional American values upon which he has greatly benefited from. From his blunders in the first Gulf War to his stated recommendation that we would need at least 350,000 men in Iraq has continued one series of military mistakes after another. Voting for a man that advocated cutting military spending at least 15% while his Party leaders advocated 25% doesn’t strike me as a man that doesn't understands what the real purpose of a defense force is for. I’ve always wondered why any first class military officer would want to be Secretary of State? Can you see Patton as such? While not to the same level as Arnold’s betrayal in time of war, Powell’s betrayal of his Party and his sniping from safe venues far from any face time with those he snipes out speaks to a man with a very big ego and very small pair where it counts. You are what you are General Powell and Benedict Arnold would understand your problems all too well.

Basil Plumley| 5.26.09 @ 9:13PM

@ Dudley

You should be angrier at your parents for naming you *Dudley* than folks who tried to do the right thing. Should not the Iraqis and Afghanis have Freedom or is that only reserved for you and your ilk?

BTW, Does this make you Dudley-do-Left?

TAO| 5.26.09 @ 9:24PM

These so-called "moderates" preaching to the so-called "extremists" we have to offer up something other than traditional conservative values really show how well they "think".

If the Democrats hide their agenda by small trappings of conservatism - and get elected over a "moderate" displaying none, what will happen should a conservative run on bonafide conservative values?

The conservative values will win.

Conservatism wins everytime it appears on the ballot, and it will carry those who run on it to victory. When it is practiced by those who run on it and win, the people and the country prosper, every time.

The poster above with the 14 page (ss) post gave the best reason not to listen to the "moderate" POV - lots of wind, no substance, and "oh-so feely good" fuzzies that one doesn't have any thought of value to be worth fighting for.

Conservatism isn't old hat, and it hasn't vanished. In fact, it will return - far stronger than before.

Gill O'Teen| 5.26.09 @ 9:27PM

I see that there is another liberal troll on this thread eager to play the race card.

News Flash - anyone who voted FOR obumassiah because he descends from Africans is a racist because they based this decision on a person's ethnicity. I don't like your liar-in-chief. But I don't care a fig who his father's people are. I care that he sucks up to foreign dictators. I care that he wants to reduce our nuclear stockpile at the same time North Korea and Iran are seeking to increase theirs. I care that he has already bankrupted this country beyond even THE EVIL BUSH's fondest dreams. I care that he has appointed criminals to important government positions such as putting tax-cheat timmy in charge of the IRS and printing more and more money. I care that he signs bills into law without reading them. I care that he is unable to speak a coherent sentence without reading it from his teleprompter. I care that he showed disrespect to our military while serving in the US senate. I care that he associated with questionable persons such as Tony Rezko and Bill Ayres. I care that he listened to Jeremiah Wright spew his venom for 20 years yet claims to have not heard a word that was said. I care that he voted twice as an illinois senator to allow US Citizens to die simply because, no thanks to the medical profession or their mothers, they managed to survive an abortion. I care that he wants to steal my money in order to give it to the criminal organization known as acorn. I care that he sabotaged those who had invested in the auto companies including many who owned successful auto dealerships. I have many other reasons to dislike this enemy of the U.S. Constitution, but race is not even on my list. So take your racist drivel out with the trash where it belongs. Gee, I don’t like joe kennedy’s teddy-boy either. Go figure.

SoCal Girl| 5.26.09 @ 9:49PM

Man, I get sick of the 'we're not racists, honest' schtick. Frankly, liberals--I don't give a damn what you think of me. Kiss my white racist backside. Morons.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.26.09 @ 11:08PM

Dudley...

"your failed policies destroyed the world economy"

I do believe you have this exactly wrong...the Community reinvestment Act of 1977, insisting banks give loans to those without the credit to own them, Fannie Mae etc etc etc...that's your stuff, Dud my man.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.26.09 @ 11:11PM

Mattled...
"The media Mr. Lord, what do we do with the media?"

They are doing it to themselves. We are here and we are not going away. But alas, there is always the sensation that things never go as fast as you'd like. We keep at it. We're on the winning side....don't forget that.

Big J| 5.26.09 @ 11:18PM

Ya'll still respondin' to Davey?

What fer?

Seriously, is Colin Powell even significant? What does he stand for? Other than what I've heard "about" him (maybe pro-choice, "big tent guy", etc.), can anyone give me a reason to even pay attention to this Obamanite? As far as I'm concerned, he goes in the same category with about 60+ million others that have been duped and drug the rest of us down with them. Wasn't he going to run for president a couple of times, but couldn't figure out which ticket?

That tells the whole (Specter) story right there. I pay no attention to this (tool) fool.

I Conner Klast| 5.26.09 @ 11:58PM

As a longtime supporter of Jack Kemp I find it disgraceful that Mr Powell claimed he was an Obama Republican knowing he was no longer alive to refute him. Mr Kemp believed in growing the wealth of our nation by lower, flatter tax rates. Mr Obama and Mr Powell believe in carving up wealth to benefit the politically connected, a 3rd world notion that breeds corruption and destroys wealth creation. Of all Mr Powell has done wrong, and there are many, this is by far the most despicable.

ruth| 5.27.09 @ 12:19AM

J. Lord, lol!

Karl M| 5.27.09 @ 12:29AM

Keep doing stories like this! Scare the moderates to the high hills. No, really, keep doing this.

Excellent.

Finrod| 5.27.09 @ 11:20AM

Just remember the modern definition of racist: anyone that's winning an argument against a liberal or progressive type.

Oldefarte| 5.27.09 @ 1:47PM

Murphy, you've obviously never heard the old saying that IF IT WALKS LIKE A CRETIN, TALKS LIKE A CRETIN, LOOKS LIKE A CRITIN, THEN IT'S NOT A DUCK, fool ["...I'm grateful that Mr Lord can make his criticisms of Powell without calling him a "cretin," as Hillyer did this weekend..."], which is obviously WHAT I'm responding to!!!!

jr| 5.27.09 @ 5:53PM

From the article:"Powell. Was he a good general? Yes indeed. His leadership in the Gulf War was superb. " I guess my memory is very very poor. Wasn't that the skirmish that saved the oil for the US and came up short of wiping out Saddam Hussein? Was that Powell's greatest feat? From factbug.org :"was opposed to the majority of George H.W. Bush Administration officials who advocated the deployment of troops to the Middle East to force Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to withdraw his armies from neighbouring Kuwait, believing the dictator could instead be contained through sanctions and a buildup of forces around Kuwait, a plan soon dubbed Powell doctrine." And I think he displayed this same attitude and process while he was Secretary of State -- a failure. As with all members of the military, excluding myself, I thank them for their service. But I disagree with the article. From wikipedia:"at Fort Carson, Colorado. There, he had a major clash with General John Hudachek, his commander, who said in an efficiency evaluation that Powell was a poor leader who should not be promoted." Case closed, dead and buried.

SallyForth| 5.27.09 @ 7:53PM

Colon, or semi Colon? I refuse to vote for a turncoat who voted for the narcisissy in the White House. Powell lost any respect i had for him when he deserted this nation by casting his lot with the gutless wonder. What goes around will also come around for him. Powell is a poser and cannot be depended upon to stand firm when the going gets rough. He made a huge error. It's not like people are going to suddenly forget his desertion. Nor should they!! I hope he is given short, very, very short shrift by the RNC. I won't vote for him EVER!!!

ds80| 5.27.09 @ 9:46PM

Colin Powell was a wanna-be Republican and now just wants to be noticed and "relevant". Sorry, broken-down old general dude. Your time is waaaaayy past.

Isn't it funny how Libs try to tell conservatives how their Party should look and speak?

StevenP| 5.28.09 @ 5:52AM

Colin Powell and his "big tent" Republicanism is exactly the reason for the Conservative Party to have been formed in 14 states. As a Conservative in New York I would say to Mr. Powell that very simply, a "Moderate Republican" is a Democrat and reaching out has eroded the basic Republican values and principles to the point that Republicans can no longer be believed to stand for anything.

jim murray| 5.28.09 @ 12:44PM

Colin Powell, the great general, stopped Gen Swartzkopf from moving on to Baghdad and ridding us of Saddam Hussein in 1991. He believes in 'affirmative action', he voted for Obama, he simply is not a Republican.

Jane| 5.28.09 @ 4:40PM

I remember reading that Powell was to blame when he was secretary of state for not nailing down the Turks' permission to use bases there to deploy the 3rd army to Iraq - poor diplomatic skills. This was in the war plan. As a result, no troops came in from the north to capture the Iraqi forces as they ran away and turned into the resistance. Can anyone point to his successes as Sec. of State? I want to be fair, but ... perhaps many are afraid to effectively evaluate his tenure at state for fear of offending him.

Teflon93| 5.29.09 @ 11:32AM

The only success to be pointed to during Powell's tenure as the least-traveled SecState in U.S. history is that U.S. relations with India were not strained to the breaking point by our alliance with Pakistan.

He botched the crucial Turkish basing issue and his assinine "you break it, you buy it" policy crippled early counterinsurgency efforts. You do indeed need to break some things to drive the Mahdi Army out of its strongholds.

Other than that, he's just a Washington backstabber.

Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:40PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie