Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president on Meet the Press

This is also the statement that Obama should have made the first time being Muslim became a smear in this election. Instead, he kept insisting over and over he is a Christian. His silence only perpetuated the smear, and I remain pretty disappointed about the way his campaign has responded. I still hope he wins, of course, but really - Obama and McCain both needed to say what Powell said a long time ago.

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

Powell's quote on the Arab/Muslim rumors, from HuffPo

Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim."Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

I posted this on Erin's site the already, but this is what McCain needed to say to his supporters.

Available Light ( http://kathy-p.blogspot.com ) & Five Dollar Radio ( http://fivedollarradio.blogspot.com/ )

and one reason he gives is Palin, saying McCain's choice showed poor judgement.

 From the New Yorker:

 Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

See the article at the New Yorker for more:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker... ( http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker... )

If we were to follow the McCain campaign logic we would have to assume that because Bush spent time with African drummers, that he is now an African American. (see comments all over about Obama being a terrorist because he spoke to Ayers, or Palin being a foreign policy expert because she lives next to Russia and Canada.)

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

"I've especially watched over the past six or seven weeks as both [candidates] have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis we're in..." [Sen. Barack Obama] "displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiousity a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this -- picking a vice president that I think is ready to be president on day one. And not just jumping in and changing every day but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well...Mr. Obama has given us a more conclusive broader reach into the aspirations and needs of our people. He's thinking all villages have values...not just small towns have values..."

And after 8 years of George Bush, this statement, particularly the phrases I've bolded, say a lot.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com )

In defense to Dana most Republicans feel that it is the job of the Federal Govt. to uphold defense and the states job to maintain roads, schools etc.  It is not so much about compassion but one what responsibility the federal gov't holds v. state gov't.  

That being said I am excited for this endorsement, a small boost for Obama I hope:).

~Susan

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

"it just means that I personally feel that there are better ways to approach this problem"

But if, as you say,  the government should be in the defense business only, that means not approaching it at all - the "fewer programs, more prisons" way of dealing with the poor.

Russia, China, France - well I would be interested in how you are defining failure here.  Russia and China in particular now have a mix of socialism and capitalism. The middle class in both countries is growing. The American middle class is shrinking; we have more rich and more poor than we did two decades ago, and it is the health of the middle class which determines the health of an economy.

Much has been made of "Joe the Plumber" and his tax vs. expansion problem, but among the small business people I've spoken to, the single biggest roadblock to hiring good people and expanding business is not taxes, but the expense of offering medical benefits.  If they can't offer benefits, they lose their best employees to companies that can. And in a world where health care is only for those who can afford it, we are crushing the entreprenuerial spirit of many who are tied to their jobs because health insurance is unaffordable for them otherwise.

We're in the financial mess that we're in because of the war games and money games of a lot of rich men. This is hardly the time for a "let them eat cake" attitude toward those who are most affected.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com )

I watched Meet the Press and I saw a patriotic American making a decision that he thought was the best decision for the country, not the best decision for his own ideology.  He was not polarizing in the least and was really thoughtful in his words. 

Giyen

www.baconismyenemy.com ( http://www.baconismyenemy.com )

from a network that found it appropriate to run a story referring to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama." Every time I think about that, my blood pressure explodes.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Awesome. Thanks for the laugh - I need it right about now. :-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Here's the Drupal module:

http://drupal.org/project/no_socialism_filter

/jk ;)

It probably has something to do with Marx's original theory that socialism is only the transition period between capitalism and communism...that this 'in-between' period is only a phase and has to happen over time.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

 As for the bailout, I've actually never written one way or the other about the bailout - ever. I'm in Ohio - we crashed years ago and no one cared.

Same here in Pa.  Ours started around 1980, I think.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Just like Fox News, Dana throws around words that leave an impression but they demand follow-up.

Dana can you clarify some things?

You wrote: “Powell is ignoring blatant socialist polices that, if enacted, would forever alter the way this country operates for the worse.”

What policies specifically are you talking about? Who is proposing them? (If you’re talking about the phrase, “spreading the wealth,”  1) it’s not a policy, and 2) it’s clear Obama was pushing the idea that the wealthy should do MORE, not less, as they are currently doing under Bush’s tax breaks... and they should be expected to sacrifice in a  time of war, as we all should [I personally don’t aree with a middle class tax cut until we are out of Iraq]. It’s astonishing that we are not all making real sacrifices at this time.)

So, I’m looking for a proposed “socialist” POLICY we should all be worried about. Thanks.

Next, you wrote:

“such words emphatically do have a place at the table when we're talking about nationalizing things like healthcare and taxing people to pay for across-the-board entitlement”

What? No one is talking about nationalizing Health Care. You do realize that, right? If not, then you don’t understand BO’s plan. What do you mean by “taxing people to pay for across the board entitlement?” What the heck does that mean?

Obama wants to lower taxes for the middle class. Period. If McCain and the GOP thinks it’s “welfare” to lower taxes, well, I’m at a loss for words.

"In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has
failed miserably."

What specific “policy” are you speaking of? If you are implying a general socialist policy, then your examples don’t work: China and Russia are not socialist countries. France has socialist leanings, but they are quite successful and yes, people pay more taxes for very good medical coverage, child care, etc.  (All the things that break the average American’s piggy bank each month.)  They are only looking at going back to a 40 hr work week, rather than the 30-something week. I’ve been there several times, know many French people, I’ll tell you that they think they have it very, very good.  They can’t believe the things we deal with here.   Can you explain what you meant here, too?

I have to say that the tools you would “like to see used,” such as “free market, little government intervention” is precisely what got us into this mess. Reagan began deregulation and the far right took it to an extreme. Phil Graham, who says we are a bunch of whiners, played a big role in further deregulating the banking industry. I remember hearing NPR reporting on it at the time, andit sounded like a really bad thing, but what did I know?
And can you explain this one:

"Government-forced compassion is socialism."

Compassion merely means having some level of concern for the other guy. Dictionary: Concerned with human welfare and the alleviation of suffering.    You want a government devoid of compassion? Wow. Like North Korea, maybe?

Lastly, I can’t believe this:

“However, I believe the government's only job should be defense, and that's pretty much it.
Um, so. The postal service, our public schools, social security, airports, roads and transportation infrastructure, Medicare and other successful government run programs should be abolished?

I guess you have quite a lot in common with the plumber dude, who hates taxes in all its forms.  Anyway, if you could clarify some of the above, it would be helpful. thanks!

KeegsMom
KIDSFLIX ( http://kidsflix.blogspot.com )

So, there you go. Out government is in the wealth distribution business--what we're arguing about today is how and how much.  In return, businesses get tax breaks and exemptions and we all get roads, protection, and other public services in return.  Again, how and how much is often what poltical campaigns are about.

What I find most puzzling about supporters of "free markets" (as if we had any!) is that when confronted with decades and cycles of historical evidence showing that those policies don't work as intended (last balanced budget anyone? last president who reduced the size of federal government? the last prosperous economy for citizens and business? what is the most successful and beloved federal program? Hint--it's "government-forced compassion" in nature).  When do facts actually become facts?  That's what I keep asking myself as I hear the chant of "free markets!" every election system. The United States doesn't have free markets anyway.  

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com ( http://www.renofabulousmedia.com )
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com ( http://www.renodiscontent.com )

Dana and Evernyone, Until we can all agree on how "socialism" is defined, it's a lost cause to even mention it unless you are trying to frighten people.  For the record, Socialism is an entire economic system planned in which the government owns all the means of production.  Socialism is NOT Medicare here and Social Security there. although by your definition, they are Socialist policies.  I can live with that.  Who doesn't support that kind of "government-enforced compassion" except for fundamentalist capitalists? 

So I'm kind of back to square one here in terms of your original comment.  What policies is Powell supporting that are Socialist?  Please be specific and leave out the policies that both candidates support. Otherwise, just admit that you used coded lanaguage for a reason--it's kind of obvious anyway.

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com ( http://www.renofabulousmedia.com )
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com ( http://www.renodiscontent.com )

Great example, Kim, Bush dancing with African drummers.  I wish I had thought of that when I mentioned Fox News's attempt to inoculate viewers ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/colin-powell-e... ) against a potential Powell endorsement.  You're right, it was an attempt to trivialize Powell.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

 The funny thing is that most "socialists" (and by that I mean academic, or politically renown socialists, people educated in or ascribing to, and or practicing the ideals of), find Obama to be conventional bourgeois politician.

I feel the same way, though I'd have preferred a more extreme progressive candidate that is impossible on a national level the way our system currently wo

cooper

I understand that people were anticipating Powell's endorsement of Obama, but for the life of me I don't understand how the folks at Fox allowed that stupid story to run. It's as if someone wanted to diminish the impact of what Powell was going to say by trivializing him. Could you imagine someone running a story showing Pres. Bush when he danced with those African drummers who visited the White House a while back, then suggesting that was a harbinger of some policy initiative?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Hi Dana,

Like you, I don't want to hijack Lisa's thread. I also don't want to get into your opinion of Powell's endorsement or Obama's candidacy. I think you've stated your opinion pretty clearly, and I get the impression that your beliefs are pretty fixed.

I'm curious about something else and I want to make a suggestion.  Given that this is a watershed moment like the 1930s where economic verities are being questioned I think it's worth examining the libertarian foundations of our economy and culture. Do you agree? If so I'd like to start a community discussion about what this moment means for our beliefs about the role of government in markets. 

Here are my assumptions. 

In the first third of the 20th century we moved from a belief in unregulated markets to the notion that there some measure of regulation was necessary to ensure competition. Keynesian economics emerged with the belief that it was necessary for government to periodically stimulate demand to smooth out the boom and bust cycle, and preserve political stability. 

Although Jimmy Carter started the trend toward deregulation (the trucking industry) Ronald Reagan inaugurated the shift to supply-side economics. I often heard his enthusiasts say that unfettered markets, by their nature, produce results that are more just than government intervention can't achieve. It was always curious to me that supply siders didn't seem anxious to eliminate the protections that came with the New Deal. And certainly the notion that some firms are too big to fail is beyond Adam Smith's imagining. We live under a regime of privatized profit and public risk. 

It seems to me that no matter who wins next month, we'll continue to have a mixed economy, and we'll have to come to a new consensus about the right balance between free markets and government planning. This is just one of the many areas that we are going to have to find a way to have a civil dialog about.

 What do you say? Do you think the kind of conversation I've suggested is worth having? Do you thnk I've accurately described where we are?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Thanks!  Have a cuppa for me, too! 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

I've released yours, too. I'll try and sit on the queue more closely than normal today - and do some research to see why these particular comments (and blog posts) are being sent immediately to the filter.

Thanks for your patience - excuse me for 20 minutes while I run and get my Monday morning Starbucks. I'll BRB to guard the queue.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Yikes!  I think you're right about Drupal. 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Yikes!  I think you're right about Drupal. 

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

 For the record, Socialism is an entire economic system planned in which the government owns all the means of production

 That's not necessarily true about government ownership.  Like anything else, there are various forms of Socialism and many hold the belief that the government should not own the means of production.  Libertarian Socialists and Libertarian Marxists don't believe in any form of political hierarchy at all, and many believe government itself is part of the capitalistic system.

Anyway, it's not so cut and dried like you're making it sound.

LePlusJeune - proud Independent

www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

Yes - what you said - that is how I see it too - I do not understand why people feel so pressed to get hung up on ideology - I mean, it's important to know what you believe, what you prefer, but to live in this country and make it work, why wouldn't anyone want it to work for as many of us as possible? Yes - we have different ideas about the best means, but if those means aren't working, they're not working - why pretend otherwise?  Then, just move on to what needs to be tried to get moving again.

Honestly - you'd think those of us who voted for Gore and Kerry would be the defensive ones and yet it feels like it's the other way around - maybe that is in fact the case, because Bush messed up so many things in ways that Republicans cannot even accept (expansion of gov't, bailing out Wall St, etc.)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Agree on the point.

Probably according to Dana  (and McCain) I would be a socialist, because I'm a big believer that "government" is really nothing more than a representation of a society, and the society has obligations to its members in order to ensure the health of the society. 

I happen to believe that once the number of people in the country reached a certain size, we can no longer afford a society, where every man or woman is out for themselves--frontier joe and jane, desperately clutching Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". 

But how about that Powell...

I've released one, deleted the other.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

 Are some comments being deleted?

I've posted two comments other than my original one and neihter have appeared.

cooper

We throw around the word hero much too much in this country, but I can definitely say that Colin Powell is one.

Like many here have said, the arguments he laid out about why he made his choice were as important as the choice itself.  I haven't been on "Powell endorsement watch," because I actually thought he might not make an endorsement at all so that he could keep from endorsing a Democrat.

But I was happy to see I was wrong. 

Megan

Megan Smith ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... )

BlogHer CE, TV/Online Video

My Personal Blog: Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )

I've posted (tried twice) some questions for Dana here and while a snippet is showing up on the home page of Blogher, it's not showing here.... any reason for this?

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX ( http://kidsflix.blogspot.com )

Very good point - it's the problem with labeling. We should be talking about the behaviors we want to encourage or discourage as they relate to the goals we want to achieve.  Slapping some label on it (same goes with feminism or fascism or being Pro-American) does nothing but keep people stuck in name-calling.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I'm here reading these comments and scratching my head thinking, "what's so wrong with being called a socialist?" - similar to the "what's so wrong with being a Muslim?" question I've been asking for months now....

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

Using the term socialist, when clearly neither candidate is a socialist, is a scare tactic.

And I think it's been battered about by the right in order to fearmonger.

Could either party or candidate have some policy and platforms that lean towards a vague socialistic viewpoint? maybe. Which I suppose means Democrats have been leaning socialist since Democrats were Democrats? But I honestly believe this is another rovian ploy to scare voters.

I assume they will use 'communist' next, if this one doesn't stick.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

I woke up to find a whole bunch of comments from this thread were trapped in the spam filter. I'm not sure why - maybe Drupal doesn't like the word "Socialism"?

I've released them (and deleted duplicate comments) - sorry for the inconvenience!

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

 The problem is that the governments policies have made corporations wards of the state without benefit to the middle class, but at a huge  cost to the middle class, the conservative party  loves large government as long as the benefits of that government enriches the corporations, we have had the largest growth of corporate welfare ever in the last 8 years without coinciding benefits to the middle class. We practice what some call "Corporate State Socialism".  The benefits of this kind of practice to the middle class is nothing any longer. The free market itself has become a took of coorproate  state socialism.

 Younger economist started noting several years ago that the free market had been taken over by ideological conservatives and made into something it was never intended to be.Something which was meant to bolster the middle class at a different time in history. Conservatives absconded with - the free market system - diverting it nicely to their gain, and to the detriment of the people . Over the last twenty five year the free markeT system has needed a rehaul and a rescue from what some view as it's kidnappers - whether by accidentor intent. I

It does seem extremely racist to suggest a man of Powell's stature is endorsing Obama based on identity/race.

If no none was endorsing him I might give you that, as identity does play a large part in the politics of this country, it always has, but what of the many white educated ideological conservatives who have recently endorsed Obama? The issue of the significant number of ideological conservatives who have now jumped ship doesn't play much on the networks until it is an African American ideological conservative who happens to be the ship jumper, and that is what bothers me.

cooper

You consider China, Russia and France failures? Why?

Dana - see - this just makes no sense - why do you say you want to use these tools:

"The policies I would like to see are capitalism, free market, little
government intervention, and for our representatives to back off of
small business."

Those are planks of the Republican platform that have been in place for decades, certainly under Greenspan. 

What is your opinion of what this country has tried to employ over the last 120 years, since at least the industrial revolution, if it has not been tools such as those? 

That is to say, do you feel that you've been living in a socialist country all your life?  Because from what you write and the way you express how you feel, that's the sense I get of your dissatisfaction with the United States as an economic entity anyway.

Maybe you flesh out a country run by libertarians? Would that be more accurate?

I really wish you could be more specific rather than plug the planks' talking points -  where have the free marketers gone wrong since they are in charge and advising for literally decades.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Er, because I disagree with you that makes me "defensive?" I'm just telling you why I think the way I do, the same as you.  I don't get that.

Faith-based initiatives are also supported by Obama, a gentle reminder. Giving a tax break to a church, temple, et al. isn't wealth redistribution. However, I believe the government's only job should be defense, and that's pretty much it.  

"To disagree with you doesn't mean that I or others are cold-hearted" -
where do you see anything about that? Do you not see the Pavlovian
reaction you yourself are giving into?"

That was a general statement as it's the most common response I've hear in response to topics such as this. You could call it me covering the bases, heheh.

""In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has
failed miserably." If you could be so kind as to list them, I'd
appreciate it"

China, Russia, France, to name a few.

I hope you realize that my post was a combination of a response to you and a general comment.

Tools? The policies I would like to see are capitalism, free market, little government intervention, and for our representatives to back off of small business. I've also said before, both in writing and on-air, that I find it funny how congress members were wringing their hands over the bailout and braying on and on about saving capitalism yet I don't think we've had a wholly capitalist economy for some time. So to answer your question no, I'm not a Johnny-come-lately, I've been dissecting these points for a long time, just for the first time here, though.

Have to prepare to go in-studio now. I know that I'll be discussing these issues in future posts for Blogher and we can go more in-depth with things then. Sorry it went off-topic, Lisa!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Dana -

You are very defensive.

I raise the point that this country has used tools that you and others are now labeling as socialism as if those tools have never been used before by the government you and I both live under.  Have you just never bothered to look, or are you only labeling them now because you see how it makes people react?

All this other stuff you charge is just over the top:

"Simply because it is an uncomfortable topic does in no way invalidate it or exclude it from the discussion."  I know I haven't been commenting a whole lot, but what little reputation I have has to do with jumping into the most uncomfy of uncomfy dialogues - so I'm really not sure what you're talking about here.

"Government-forced compassion is socialism."  What do you call the millions that Bush puts into faith-based and community initiatives and has for the last eight years - programs he created?

"To disagree with you doesn't mean that I or others are cold-hearted" - where do you see anything about that? Do you not see the Pavlovian reaction you yourself are giving into?

"In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has failed miserably." If you could be so kind as to list them, I'd appreciate it - Britain, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Canada - you consider those places failures? Israel while we're at it.

"You forget that on the watch of the Democratic majority - who, might I
add, has the lowest approval rating of any congress in history, lower
than even Bush's rating - did we have this economic disaster."  Not sure why you go from history to that, but okay, esp. given that Paulson and his friends from Goldman came in at the recommendation of Bush. I sure hope you weren't someone who blamed Iraq and Iran and Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden on Bill Clinton.

As for the bailout, I've actually never written one way or the other about the bailout - ever. I'm in Ohio - we crashed years ago and no one cared.  As I wrote, now that it's hitting up CEOs, Bush et al are all over it.

Again - tell me the tools - what are the tools that you suggest if you don't like the tools that you want to label as being a part of socialism?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Buzzwords - like socialism - have no place in the debate about what kind of leadership and government we want.

It's not a buzzword, it's a form of distribution; such words emphatically do have a place at the table when we're talking about nationalizing things like healthcare and taxing people to pay for across-the-board entitlement programs as these embody the very definition of the term. Simply because it is an uncomfortable topic does in no way invalidate it or exclude it from the discussion. You go on to dismiss this yet in your next sentence:

"This is the 21st Century - we live in a country that has enough wealth
and potential that we can afford to focus on taking care of every
single American, not to mention the fact that we should care about
taking care of every single American. "

We also live in a free country. Government-forced compassion is socialism. "Spreading the wealth" is a buzzword of socialism. To disagree with you doesn't mean that I or others are cold-hearted as we are incorrectly portrayed anymore than it means you're naive - it just means that I personally feel that there are better ways to approach this problem (as do you) than by taxing people and creating a welfare state. I think both sides have the best of intentions but I disagree with wealth distribution. In every single country where such a policy has been enacted it has failed miserably. That's just history. 

"the tools deployed by conservatives for the 14 years they were in
charge of the Congress and then six years they overlapped with Bush
have contributed to where we are today and they most certainly passed
legislation and funded legislation that could be labeled "socialism" if
anyone really wanted to."

You forget that on the watch of the Democratic majority - who, might I add, has the lowest approval rating of any congress in history, lower than even Bush's rating - did we have this economic disaster. Both parties are to blame but if you want to discuss who was at the helm of those companies (and who appointed them), who took the most money from those companies, who fought to force the hands of companies to offer loans to people who couldn't afford them (this was the "deregulation" of which people on the right spoke), we can do that, too. You would quickly see that this isn't just a "Republican problem." (And by
the way, I am not Republican, I just loathe big government. /digress.)

I find it ironic in that there are some who say they were against the bailout yet supported the above mentioned regulation, one of the very things which kick-started this economic downfall. The bailout simply followed through on the quasi-socialist principle on which that regulation was established. Again, I dislike it as much as you, but it is what it is. 

We are beyond blaming parties; we need to focus on the solution now.

And yes, I feel that calling a socialist policy a socialist policy helps if we are speaking of political honesty (I respect the opinion of others way too much to be otherwise) and really interested in identifying the problems that have put our country in its current predicament.

Knowing all of this is why I question Powell's endorsement. I don't want to hijack Lisa's comments,; I only wanted to use this as an example of why I disagree with Powell and why my mindset has not been swayed, because I knew that I would be asked. ;)

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Wow. I think it's a fascinating analysis of the political world today. I agree, his tone really is remarkable. He obviously put a lot of thought into this. How he explains himself is much more interesting than the endorsement itself.

Colin Powell: the man is remorseful about Iraq, he was in a wretched position, it doesn't excuse him for not standing up and stepping out but it is what it is - a lot of other people led us in that direciton and have yet to apologize or admit making mistakes.  I can only discredit him so much in connection with his role in Iraq.

Voters: I'm in the la-la land of Ohio, folks and we have a lot of independents for whom what Colin Powell says may matter - but nothing definite.  Frankly, his repudiation of the divisiness in McCain's campaigning is far more valuable to voters in Ohio, IMO, because our economy has been in a tailspin for years - any of you remember how Bush campaigns in 2004 by saying that the economy was so healthy, except in Ohio? He literally said that - he excepted Ohio. Never occurred to the Goldman Sachs folks who run the Treasury to care enough about that exception until their brethren were affected.

But I digress.

Buzzwords - like socialism - have no place in the debate about what kind of leadership and government we want.  This is the 21st Century - we live in a country that has enough wealth and potential that we can afford to focus on taking care of every single American, not to mention the fact that we should care about taking care of every single American.  That has nothing to do with socialism except to the extent that we disagree on what programs and tools and sticks and carrots we deploy to reach that end.

Dana - the tools deployed by conservatives for the 14 years they were in charge of the Congress and then six years they overlapped with Bush have contributed to where we are today and they most certainly passed legislation and funded legislation that could be labeled "socialism" if anyone really wanted to.

But where does that really get us? If you want to disagree on the means we use to get to the same end (an economic healthy country of 300 million), then let's argue about the tools. But labeling someone or some entity "Socialist!" doesn't help us get there.  At least, I don't see how it does.

Do you feel that labeling something socialism or socialist actually moves us forward somehow?? 

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Colin Powell is, to all intents and purposes, stating that he probably would have voted for McCain except for McCain's recent actions: picking Palin, his economic ups and downs, and his less than stellar campaigning. He also stated that he's had problems with the Republican party--the rightward, religious slant. 

There is no way that Colin Powell would vote for anyone just because of their race. That is so unlike him as to be ludicrous.

I'm not fond of Colin Powell as I once was, because of his stance on Iraq. But this was an eloquent, and difficult to denounce, endorsement. I especially appreciated his defense of being Muslim, and call for religious tolerance. He really won points from me on that one.

But what on earth does your statement have to do with Powell's endorsement of Obama?

That I disagree with his support of a candidate whose policies I disagree with?

For the record, both candidates voted for the bailout. All of these things are relevant when discerning for whom to vote and the weight of their endorsements based upon those policies!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Sarcasm doesn't lend itself to the written word with the same ease in which it's spoken, sadly.
"But when you stated that Powell was only supporting Obama because of
race and you object to identity politics now that when I have issues,
and I stated them."

Except I never said that. I'll quote my previous comment for clarification:

"Is Powell biased? Is he doing this simply because of race? I will not
join in the game of identity politics: I won't presume to know the
inner workings of his mind well enough to make such a call and I think
it distracts from issues like inexperience and bad policies." 

Allow me to disagree with someone's policies and endorsement without words being put in my mouth, heh. My point was that this election has been burdened by identity politics, either orchestrated by a particular camp or the subordinates thereof, respective to the subject posed in the orginal post. It's weird; I feel like the campaigns themselves have gone on for forever but that we've only had a modicum of time to discuss the issues that will dictate our economy, foreign policy, etc. It's unfortunate.

Lisa, I agree in that Powell struck a careful and respectful tone in addressing this, regardless whether or not I disagree with his premise (especially when he cited negative campaigning which I vehemently believe each side is just as guilty as the other). Credit where it's due!

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

If every voter could explain her choice so eloquently and carefully as Colin Powell did, we would have a lot more clear thinking on the issues in this election.

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt )
Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ )
First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com/ )

 I wasn't surprised it had been rumored he would do it on "Face the Nation". I do have respect for Colin Powell though I do not always agree with his ideology. I think it is a significant endorsement.

What he said is not much different than what the multitude of well known conservatives who have endorsed Obama over the last couple of weeks have said.

I was  more surprised at the Chicago Tribune endorsement as they have never endorsed a Democrat for president, though Colin Powells endorsement holds more significance, as it will possiblly affect a broader group of voters.

cooper

I would agree that 'race' still is an unknown factor in this political race. And I personally know life long Democrats that will not vote for Obama because of his race.  I think that the Obama campaign has recognized that as well, thus the push to enroll younger voters.  

Colin Powell, however, does (in my little middle-aged and older world) carry sway with independents and more liberal leaning republicans.  Many of whom, have been undecided.  I do think that how he laid out his reasoning was important and is part of the reason that it is resonating with undecideds.

but I too am often accused of being hostile when I debate on things. Perhaps much is lost in text.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Apparently, the federal government is enacting Socialist policies (bailout) on the behalf of corporations, not the citizens of this country. Politicies that McCain supports and wants to expand (his motgage buy up plan).  But what on earth does your statement have to do with Powell's endorsement of Obama?

Yours, Tracy Viselli (a.k.a. Myrna the Minx)

My Company

Reno Fabulous Media: www.renofabulousmedia.com ( http://www.renofabulousmedia.com )
My Main Blog
Reno and Its Discontents: www.renodiscontent.com ( http://www.renodiscontent.com )