-
Vanderbilt Drops the Ball on Religious Freedom - UPDATED: Vanderbilt Replies
January 27, 2012 | 31 comments
-
Hillary Clinton: State Dept. can get more done without public paying attention
January 26, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Hinchey to retire
January 18, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Challenge to Manhattan's Rent Control Laws Goes to Supreme Court
December 21, 2011 | 7 comments
-
RyanAir CEO Slams EU at EU Innovation Summit
December 19, 2011 | 12 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Prompted by a friend to address the Colin Powell "problem," I read James Poulos's insights on Powell-ism:
Nothing in Powell's endorsement rationale, which is textbook Powell from beginning to end, has to do with either his or Obama's race, or with any crazy hopes that Powell might harbor. His praise for Obama's style and substance was firm, even, and in keeping with the skills Obama has already plainly demonstrated. Indeed, Powell waited for his endorsement until the substance of his own praise for Obama had become almost completely uncontroversial.
But then, his praise for Obama was entirely superficial. Powell certainly is Eisenhower, someone who feels no particular allegiance politically speaking. Though that, in itself, is a testament to the man's character. He's certainly become a "party unto himself," but if so, why speak at so many GOP conventions? Powell's neutrality is overrated. He enjoyed his time in the sun as a Republican darling, but was unhappy when things didn't go his way. He has every right to express that unhappiness, but don't attribute to the man a transcendence over politics.
I do agree with one point Poulos makes:
But by the same token, Powell's praise of Obama is only partially an attack on conservatism, and even then is a largely misguided one.
Indeed, Powell's caricature of modern conservatism either makes him a dunce or simply desperate to disassociate himself from the Republican party. As defined, even the right isn't too happy with how "right" the party has become.
By the way, missed in the hubbub about his endorsement is his skillful defense of the Iraq War. What doesn't measure up, though, is that if Powell was so certain, based on his sources, that the Iraq War was the right thing to do, why does Obama still get points for good judgment in opposing the same war?
This is part of a larger argument, obviously, that really can't ever be won. Namely thus: Just because weapons of mass destruction weren't found doesn't legitimize the anti-war left's position. They would have been against the war whether or not Iraq was a threat. I was sold on the war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction (not fighting tyranny). I remain sold on it because of the problems posed by withdrawing early.
In that light, I'm curious about how Powell addresses the endgame. So Obama was apparently judicious to not believe Powell's presentation to the UN. What about Obama's withdrawal plans/rhetoric is judicious?
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/10/21/colin-trouble
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
J David| 10.21.08 @ 4:17PM
As the pragmatist (not listening to conscience, opposite of "idealist") that he is. Colin waited to see which party he thought, by the numbers, would be the party which might do HIM the most good, and jumped on their bus. He obviously thinks commie-lib Dems will have overwhelming majorities after Nov 4, and so he has thrown the party that brought him so much under Hussein's bus.
Robert Stacy McCain| 10.21.08 @ 5:30PM
Well, J.P., I was NOT sold on the war in Iraq, specifically because Saddam's WMD program was never a threat to the United States. (I was a news editor at the time, and didn't have a platform to make that argument, alas.) Once the war started, however, I was an advocate of victory as the only acceptable outcome. I don't like war, but I don't like defeat, either.
Unlike "Cakewalk Ken" Adelman, I never advocated the invasion of Iraq. And unlike John Kerry, I was against the war before I was for it. And unlike both of them, I'm not endorsing Obama. Guess you could call my views "nuanced."
Mrs. Jackson| 10.21.08 @ 6:12PM
One of the most distasteful aspects of Barack Obama's 2 year presidential run has been those white Republican folks and even independents who did not want to support Obama for very real reasons but felt compelled to have to say out loud, "This has nothing to do with him being black. I'd be happy to vote for Colin Powell if he were running."
This made me cringe because if most of those folks understood really how liberal for a Republican Powell is, not to mention his less than admirable behavior in the Plame Game, they probably wouldn't be 'happy' to vote for him.
Real American| 10.21.08 @ 6:57PM
Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is about race...racial preferences that is. Powell is a big supporter and I bet he was a bit disappointed in the Bush Administration's stance on it in the U. of Michigan cases. Obama is the ultimate affirmative action candidate as if he were white, he'd be held to a higher standard and never would have come close to the nomination or the presidency. It's no wonder that Powell endorsed him.
Mrs. Jackson| 10.21.08 @ 9:02PM
Hmmn...in the last election we all learned George Bush's SAT scores were higher than John Kerry's. Wonder if Kerry's were higher than Obama's?
Oh, how the Left would howl....
Grissie| 10.22.08 @ 6:56AM
Personally I found Powells endorsement of Obamas rhetoric transparent and actually rather amusing. Much like a elementary school child "getting back" at a group of former associates. My opinion of Colin Powell has certainly gone south.