If you have paid close attention to Powell you would know that he is a moderate on foreign policy and a liberal on domestic and social policy.

For example, a social conservative would be thrilled with the two recent Supreme Court nominees and yet one of the reasons Powell gave for supporting Obama were these two appointments.

 

 

Powell is a moderate Republican. Just because he believes abortion should be legal doesn't automatically make him a "liberal" on social issues. He is also on record as supporting private school vouchers, charter schools, drilling in ANWR, limited government intervention in the markets, reduced taxes, prayer in public schools, free trade, welfare and entitlement reform, all decidedly "non-liberal" positions on social and domestic policy.

 

How closely have you been paying attention to Powell?

So now we have Warren Buffet, one of the most respected investors in the United States, and Colin Powell, one of the most respected national security and foreign policy experts endorsing Barack Obama for President.

 

So much for the 'unqualified' arguments.

 

Evidently the lack of qualifications go hand in hand with the candidate being endorsed.

Evidently the lack of qualifications go hand in hand with the candidate being endorsed.

 

 

The modern day Republican Party is not above tearing down any respected national figure who dares cross it with an inconvenient public statement or endorsement. I imagine listeners of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity will be treated to a "soft Swift Boating" treatment of Colin Powell this coming week.

Powell is a moderate Republican. Just because he believes abortion should be legal doesn't automatically make him a "liberal" on social issues. He is also on record as supporting private school vouchers, charter schools, drilling in ANWR, limited government intervention in the markets, reduced taxes, prayer in public schools, free trade, welfare and entitlement reform, all decidedly "non-liberal" positions on social and domestic policy.

 

How closely have you been paying attention to Powell?

 

Enough to know that when Powell talks about "welfare reform" he is just as likely to be talking about reforming "corporate welfare" as any other kind of welfare. I also know that he favors affirmative action.

 

I am surprised to learn that Powell is in favor of school prayer since I know he has previously come out in favor of a "moment of silence" which IMHO seems like a reasonable compromise but is not a position that I would characterize as being in favor of school prayer.

Edited October 19, 200817 yr by shooter

If you have paid close attention to Powell you would know that he is a moderate on foreign policy and a liberal on domestic and social policy.

For example, a social conservative would be thrilled with the two recent Supreme Court nominees and yet one of the reasons Powell gave for supporting Obama were these two appointments.

 

So, if he is not ENTIRELY right-leaning, he is not a republican?

Wow. Someone phone Powell and tell him he has to change his party affiliation.

So, if he is not ENTIRELY right-leaning, he is not a republican?

Wow. Someone phone Powell and tell him he has to change his party affiliation.

 

There is no way Powell really views himself as a Republican....No way.

So, if he is not ENTIRELY right-leaning, he is not a republican?

Wow. Someone phone Powell and tell him he has to change his party affiliation.

 

 

Not only is he not allowed to call himself a bona fide Republican, he goes all the way to being "liberal" (do not pass "moderate", do not collect $200).

There is no way Powell really views himself as a Republican....No way.

 

 

Do you view yourself as a Republican? You're voting for Bob Barr, right?

Well, boys and, of course, girls, my thesis has been proven. I have always thought that you Obamaites were more concerned with political correctness and censorship than you were with the danger to the republic of socialism. Indeed, as expected, I was correct.

 

Since the meaning of most all of these tags is in the eyes of the beholder and since the majority seems to be heck-bent (How's that for pc?) on seriously damaging individual initiative in favor of spreading the wealth, I will refrain from further postings on the subject and use my time and energies to accumulate some more hard-earned wealth for my heirs before the socialists take over and expect me to support those who tend to be allergic to work. I am not including the truly needy in this last group because they are entitled to our assistance. I am referring to the con artists who perpetuate themselves generation after generation and who will vote in mass (possibly several times each) and will determine the outcome of the election. How does the saying go? Oh yes, the inmates will run the asylum

Not only is he not allowed to call himself a bona fide Republican, he goes all the way to being "liberal" (do not pass "moderate", do not collect $200).

 

:laugh:

I've seen it argued on some blogs that the current administration has done as much "wealth redistribution" as Sen. Obama proposes. Of course, that distribution is purported to have gone in the opposite direction.

 

Not saying I agree, just saying.

Do you view yourself as a Republican? You're voting for Bob Barr, right?

 

Yes, I am voting for Bob Barr, and no I don't view myself as a Republican...

Not only is he not allowed to call himself a bona fide Republican, he goes all the way to being "liberal" (do not pass "moderate", do not collect $200).

 

Much like Christopher Buckley - don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out. No room for you in the "party of inclusion" any more.

So, if he is not ENTIRELY right-leaning, he is not a republican?

Wow. Someone phone Powell and tell him he has to change his party affiliation.

 

Where did I say he wasn't a Republican?

Not only is he not allowed to call himself a bona fide Republican, he goes all the way to being "liberal" (do not pass "moderate", do not collect $200).

 

I suppose if I use the word "liberal" to describe some of Powell's positions, it totally negates when I use the word "moderate" to describe others; even if both words appear in the very same post.