How many traditionally vote democrat? Over 90%, I believe.

 

How many non African-Americans traditionally vote democrat? If that number is down this year, am I simply to believe that it is race related, too? Or should we examine more than just the shade of skin of the person pulling the lever?

What percentage of African-Americans voted for Obama vs Clinton in the primary?

 

For what its worth, my guess is that his endorsement deals a lot less with race and anything Obama offers than it does with the bitterness he feels towards Bush and Republican leaders because he feels he was duped into supporting the Iraq invasion and his personal reputation resultingly tarnished. But I can understand for the reasons discussed above why some people might think race was the major factor in his endorsement. Again, I do not.

 

:thumb:

 

While Obama may be "transformational" or whatever other adjective Powell said, Obama's principles are not in line with Powells, and that is well documented. He is upset at Bush, et al. and this is the way he fires back.

I respect Colin Powell.

 

I admire his accomplishments and contributions to this nation.

 

As far as I know, he is an honorable man.

 

We simply disagree on our choice of candidates. :thumb:

I apologize for bringing race into this thread, but at this time I will agree with Rush. Powell's endorsement of Obama is nothing but race. I can't give the exact quote by Rush but it goes something like this...Research how many inexperienced liberal "white" candidates Powell has endorsed in the past and you will see race start creeping in.

 

Powell claims to have been a friend of McCain's for 25 years and highly respected him. He's just getting to know Obama and turns his back on McCain????

 

Again, I'm sorry, but this sounds like a race endorsement to me.

 

You may want to read this link, it is how many who will be voting for Obama feel.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-oba_n_135895.html

LN I have a question. I understand you don't particulary like Powell, but wouldn't Bush have been better served having him as Secretary of Defense instead af Rumsfeild. Things seem to be going much better in Iraq since Rumsfeild stepped down.

 

I don't know if it we would have been better served with Powell as the SecDef. Since I'm no fan of Powell, my opinion of whether he would have been a better SecDef would be admittedly biased.

 

If I remember correctly (and I'm not totally sure about this) Powell was an advocate of more troops from the get go, whereas as Rumsfeld was not. People think that if we had more troops in Iraq immediately after the invasion phase, we'd have eliminated most of the troubles we experienced in the post invasion phase. I'm inclined to think to the contrary.

 

Sometimes things have to sink to their bottom before they can be corrected. I believe that the situation had to deteriorate in Iraq to the point that it did, before the Iraqis would "accept" our troops as being the ones that could straighten it out. I believe that if we had put a large number of troops on the ground and on every street corner immediately after the invasion phase that we would have supported the argument that we were heck bent on occupying the country, over there for the oil and empire building, and our presence would have been even more resented than it was. By using a more "minimalist" presence, there is no doubt that we enabled the insurgents to gain a foothold and cause problems. But that is exactly what finally has forced the Iraqi people to want to work with us and "welcome" (well sort of) an increased troop presence. In other words, we enabled the insurgents to become an even greater enemy of the Iraqi people than they consider us to be. If we had done the surge from the get go, I'm not sure if we could have ever gotten the average Iraqi to want us to be there.

 

Also keep in mind that in addition to worrying about what the average Joe Iraqi was thinking, we also had to be concerned about what the other middle eastern countries would have felt if we had "occupied" Iraq with a large number of troops immediately after the invasion phase. Some governments other there are behind the scenes friendly towards us but segments of their people are not and my guess (and its just a guess for sure) is that we were advised by our friendly governments that we must be careful not to be seen as occupiers of Iraq because such would lather up the anti Americans in their countries. Having fewer troops in Iraq and quickly turning over security and other segments of the country to the Iraqis bolstered our argument that we were not there as occupiers but as liberators. No doubt that such strategy is responsible for some of the problems experienced in Iraq that eventually were remedied by the surge. But I wonder what would have happened if we had gone into Iraq with a "surge level" of troops immediately after the invasion phase. Rather than viewed (as we are now) as the folks who can stop the assassinations and bombings by the insurgents, we may have been viewed as people overrunning and occupying their country for our exclusive benefit.

 

If my recollection of Powell's position on post invasion troop strength is correct, we may have an even worse situation on hand than we do now. If Powell had been Sec Def and been able to convince Bush to go with "surge level" of troops immediately, we may have had even more problems. No one can know for sure and perhaps my theory is wrong. But I do know that some times things can only get straightened out when things have hit bottom and people are willing to accept things that they otherwise would not have accepted. Its was a judgment call kind of thing made at the time and its hard to say whether Rumsfeld was right or Powell was right.

 

Which is exactly why I want the most experienced person in the White House making these type of judgment decisions. Issues like the raising and lowering of taxes, internation trade decisions, welfare programs, trade deficit issues, increased or decreased regulations on business and similar decisions affecting the economy get vetted and beat around heavily by Congress and the public. Military, intelligence and foreign policy decisions however are often made by the President with, understandably for timeliness and secrecy reasons, little Congressional and public input. Have the wrong guy making those decisions and the affect on Americans and our economy could be catastrophic.

 

I'm one of those 1% of the people that still believes that Rumsfeld was a good SecDef and knew what he was doing. Would Powell have done a better job? Maybe. Heck I don't know. There is no doubt that he has considerable experience in military and foreign policy matters. While I'm not a fan, as I've mentioned, of Powell, I could certainly vote for him much easier than I could vote for Obama. Heck, if he was a Democrat running against a Republican with the same lack of experience that Obama has, I'd vote for Powell in a NY minute even though I am not a fan of his.

 

Sorry for the long answer (no surprise there I'm sure) that doesn't give you a clear cut answer, but your question is hard to answer with any degree of certainty.

It is ridiculous to think the pro-CHOICE position isn't the "true conservative" viewpoint. True is the word you need to look at, I'm not talking about the pseudo-conservative platform that the religious right has came up with. That platform is quite far from conservatism.

Pro-Choice is misleading. Pro-Abortion Rights is more accurate.

 

If you think that supporting taxpayer-funded abortions is actually the true conservative (or Libertarian) viewpoint, then I think you and I have different ideas on what conservatism is.

 

You said it yourself- government should provide infrastructure, national security, and protection of rights. I don't think you would argue that government should use the taxpayers' money to fund something they don't support. What they should provide, in this situation, is a protection of rights for the infant- like the right to Life.

You may want to read this link, it is how many who will be voting for Obama feel.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-oba_n_135895.html

 

 

And for what its worth, this person voting for McCain doesn't give a hoot in Hades either whether Obama was or is a Muslim (and I believe him when he says he's not and never was a Muslim). While his past "associations" concerns me a little, its his gross inexperience in matters of grave importance to our country and to the young men and women in our military and our intelligence agencies that troubles me. If Obama had any where close to McCain's level of experience in those matters, then perhaps some of the rather nebulous things that Powell cited in his support of Obama might sway me to vote for Obama. But the undeniable fact is that Obama does not.

 

In the knee jerk reacting going on by people in this campaign, people have forgotten the real issue here: that is whether Obama is experienced enough in military, intelligence and foreign policy decisions to be able to sift through what will undoubtedly be conflicting advise from his advisors and then make the correct decisions. If he makes the wrong ones, decisions like whether to raise or lower the capital gains rate, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, whether to privatize Social Security will be put so far onto the back burner, they won't even be on the stove. And God help our country if he makes the wrong ones.

You may want to read this link, it is how many who will be voting for Obama feel.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-oba_n_135895.html

The huffingtonpost is a rag.

Thanks LN. I respect your opinion. Don't always agree with it, but respect it.

Thanks LN. I respect your opinion. Don't always agree with it, but respect it.

 

Your welcome and thank you. I'll be the first to admit (well maybe Henry would be the first and me second ) that my opinions and thoughts are not always right. I just try to analyze things to the best of my abilities and stay focused on the real issues. Way too often, we can get sidetracked by the red herrings (as lawyers like to call the insignificant issues) and not focus on the real important things. In my opinion, both campaigns have engaged in strong campaigns to encourage Americans to lose focus of what should be really important to Americans. While I thought Palin was a great choice by McCain, her attacks on Obama are a prime example of this. I still think she would be a great VP because I think she would bring the ideas and perspectives of the average Joe to the White House, which is something that hasn't been present in a very, very long time.

When polls show that up to 95% if African-Americans intend to vote for Barack Obama, it is difficult not to suspect that race is a factor in those voters' minds and Powell is no exception. If 90 to 95% of white Americans were supporting John McCain what would liberals be saying?

 

 

Nearly 90% of African-Americans voters have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since 1964. Given the shift in the general electorate's party affiliation away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats and the state of the economy (which, rightly or wrongly disproportionately penalizes incumbents), why should a high percentage of African-Americans voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate mean they are supporting Obama because he is black?

Nearly 90% of African-Americans voters have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since 1964. Given the shift in the general electorate's party affiliation away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats and the state of the economy (which, rightly or wrongly disproportionately penalizes incumbents), why should a high percentage of African-Americans voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate mean they are supporting Obama because he is black?

 

Hoot may correct me if I am wrong (and I know he will :lol:), but I think that he is referring to the much higher African-American voter turnout. This, coupled with the additional few percentage points, is the large increase he is trying to get across (I think)

Ken Adelman, an indisputable conservative and national security expert, is endorsing Obama, largely for the same reasons that Powell did. Adelman is white, though.

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

 

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

 

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

 

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

 

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

 

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

 

New Yorker

Ken Adelman, an indisputable conservative and national security expert, is endorsing Obama, largely for the same reasons that Powell did. Adelman is white, though.

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

 

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

 

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

 

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

 

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

 

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

 

New Yorker

So, essentially, he is scared of what would happen if McCain became President, and he has decided that the most appropriate reaction is vote for someone he disagrees with on the issues.

 

I'd rather vote for someone with no chance who aligns with my views, then someone who doesn't align at all with my views at all.

So, essentially, he is scared of what would happen if McCain became President, and he has decided that the most appropriate reaction is vote for someone he disagrees with on the issues.

 

I'd rather vote for someone with no chance who aligns with my views, then someone who doesn't align at all with my views at all.

 

:lol: Yeah, his logic didn't hold much water with me, but he's a white conservative going the other way for the sake of discussion.

 

I sort of feel like both Powell and Adler: I've found the Republican party to be corrupted, found McCain's campaign to be embarrassingly poor, and found them to be related, to the point that I can't vote for McCain, yet I haven't bothered to make the necessary logical missteps and backpedaling to get to an Obama endorsement.